Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

The dispute centers on an employee, who was hired by a company operating customer service call centers, and who signed an arbitration agreement and a confidentiality agreement as part of her onboarding process. The arbitration agreement was included in a lengthy new hire packet, and the employee understood she was required to sign it to accept the job. The agreement mandated arbitration for nearly all claims between the parties, including those that could arise after employment ended and claims unrelated to employment. The confidentiality agreement included provisions restricting the employee from soliciting colleagues and granted the company the ability to seek injunctive relief for breaches without proving actual damages.After the employee left her position, she filed a class action lawsuit against the company asserting several employment-related claims. The company responded by seeking to compel arbitration based on the previously signed agreement. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the motion. It found the arbitration agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and determined it was a contract of adhesion with a low degree of procedural unconscionability. However, the court found the agreement substantively unconscionable due to its overly broad scope, unlimited duration, and lack of mutuality, following precedent such as Cook v. University of Southern California (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 312. The court also concluded the confidentiality agreement’s injunctive relief and nonsolicitation clauses were unconscionable. Ultimately, the court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the unconscionable terms could not be severed without rewriting the contract.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the arbitration agreement, read together with the confidentiality agreement, was permeated with unconscionability that could not be cured by severance, and thus was unenforceable. View "Bennett v. VXI Global Solutions" on Justia Law

A plaintiff, who worked as an hourly employee for an automobile dealership, signed a binding arbitration agreement as part of his hiring process. The agreement required arbitration for nearly all disputes with the employer and a broadly defined set of “affiliates,” including entities not directly related to the employment relationship. It also mandated specific procedures for initiating arbitration, which were more restrictive for the employee than for the employer. The plaintiff later filed a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging various wage and hour violations and unfair competition claims.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. Although it found the parties had agreed to arbitrate, the court concluded the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to moderate-to-high procedural unconscionability—primarily because of pressure to sign, the agreement’s presentation in English to a Spanish-speaking employee, and its format. The court also found substantive unconscionability in the agreement’s overbroad scope, lack of mutuality regarding parties and procedures, and infinite duration. It declined to sever the offending terms, instead refusing to enforce the agreement.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the trial court’s order. It held that while the agreement was adhesive, there was only a low degree of procedural unconscionability. However, it found high substantive unconscionability due to the overbreadth and lack of mutuality in the agreement. The appellate court concluded the unconscionable terms were severable and the trial court erred by not severing them. It reversed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration and directed the trial court to sever the offending terms, enforce arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual employment claims, and address the issue of the class action waiver. View "Salazar v. CN Motor Co." on Justia Law

A train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, resulting in a release of dangerous substances into the environment. This incident led to a class-action lawsuit involving nearly half a million residents. After extensive environmental testing and expert analysis, both sides reached a settlement to avoid prolonged litigation. The settlement established a $600 million fund, allowing residents to receive direct payments and, if desired, additional compensation for waiving personal injury claims. Those with extraordinary losses or injuries could submit claims for further individualized consideration.Prior to this appeal, some objectors challenged the settlement, asserting that class counsel should have reviewed and disclosed more expert evidence regarding long-term risks. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, after a fairness hearing, approved the settlement and rejected these objections. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that approval, citing the adequacy and fairness of the settlement process and the sufficiency of the evidence considered.A small group of residents who had waived personal injury claims subsequently sought relief from the settlement, alleging fraud and misconduct by class counsel and Norfolk Southern. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of relief under Rule 60 for abuse of discretion. The court held that the movants failed to demonstrate fraud on the court, fraud by an opposing party, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(3), 60(d)(3), or 60(b)(6). The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The main holding is that the settlement approval stands and the movants are not entitled to relief from judgment. The disposition by the Sixth Circuit is affirmed. View "In re: E. Palestine Train Derailment" on Justia Law

Five individuals, who were either peaceful protesters or independent journalists, attended demonstrations at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon. During these events, they were exposed to tear gas and pepper balls used by federal agents to disperse crowds. The protests involved both peaceful activities and significant unrest, including vandalism, blocking entrances, and attacks on law enforcement. The plaintiffs claimed that federal agents specifically targeted them in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against federal officials and the Department of Homeland Security. After discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction restricting the use of non-lethal munitions to situations involving an imminent threat of physical harm, prohibiting their use on certain parts of the body, imposing limits on pepper spray, and requiring redesign of agent uniforms for better identification. Additionally, the District Court provisionally certified a class of all individuals who had protested or reported on DHS activities at the Portland ICE facility. The government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal was denied by the District Court but granted by the Ninth Circuit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated both the preliminary injunction and the provisional class certification. The court held that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim, as law enforcement may use non-lethal force to clear crowds and restore order without facing an imminent threat of physical harm. The record did not support claims of an unwritten policy or intent to retaliate against First Amendment activity. The court also found the injunction overbroad and unworkable, and the class failed to meet Rule 23’s commonality and indivisible remedy requirements. The preliminary injunction and class certification were vacated. View "DICKINSON V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

Five individuals who participated as peaceful protesters and independent journalists at demonstrations outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon, alleged that federal law enforcement officers targeted them with non-lethal crowd-control munitions such as tear gas and pepper balls. The plaintiffs claimed this was retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. The protests, which occurred between June 2025 and February 2026, often involved both peaceful dissent and significant unrest, including vandalism, trespassing, and obstruction of law enforcement. The plaintiffs were exposed to crowd-control devices during these protests, frequently while in proximity to unlawful activity.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting federal officers from using non-lethal munitions except against individuals posing an imminent threat of physical harm, and ordered that agents’ uniforms be redesigned with conspicuous identifying markings. The district court also certified a provisional class encompassing all individuals who had protested or reported on DHS activities at the Portland ICE facility since June 2025, and denied the government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s orders. The Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, holding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim. The court found no evidence of an unwritten policy or pattern of retaliation by DHS and held that law enforcement may use non-lethal force to clear crowds and restore order without waiting for an imminent threat of physical harm. The injunction was found to be overbroad, improperly granting relief to non-parties, and unworkable. The class certification was vacated for lack of commonality and failure to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2)’s indivisible-remedy requirement. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Apria Healthcare provides home healthcare products and services, employing delivery drivers through third-party agencies and licensed vocational nurses directly. Travis Smith and Uriel Arauz, both former employees, commenced a class action against Apria in Sutter County Superior Court alleging wage and hour violations on behalf of similarly situated employees. Proposed interveners Angela Tisdale and Terrance Pratt are former delivery drivers and named plaintiffs in a separate, related federal action against Apria for similar wage and hour claims, covering delivery drivers hired after the class certification date in another Los Angeles County action.The Sutter County Superior Court preliminarily approved a settlement in the Smith action, which conditionally certified a class and found the settlement fair. Tisdale and Pratt, concerned about a collusive “reverse auction” settlement that might undermine the rights of putative class members in their federal action, filed an ex parte application to intervene in the Smith action after the court’s preliminary approval and class notice. Their application was supported by evidence of their early awareness and concern over the settlement process, but was filed several months after those concerns were first raised.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s denial of the intervention application. The appellate court held that Tisdale and Pratt’s application was untimely, noting that they knew or should have known of risks to their interests well before filing, and their delay prejudiced the settlement process and the original parties. The court affirmed the trial court’s order denying intervention, concluding that the untimeliness of the application defeated both mandatory and permissive intervention. Respondents were awarded costs on appeal. View "Smith v. Apria Healthcare" on Justia Law

Several Medicaid enrollees in Florida, whose benefits were terminated due to income-based eligibility determinations, challenged the adequacy of the notices they received from the state. These notices, generated by Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), typically stated that Medicaid benefits would end because “household income is too high,” but did not include essential individualized information such as the household size used, the countable income figure, the income threshold applied, or the specific Medicaid eligibility category considered. In some cases, the notices also included contradictory or confusing information about which household members were affected. Many recipients later learned that their coverage had been terminated or restored in error, but the notices did not provide enough detail for them to understand or contest the agency’s decisions.The case was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, focusing on whether the notices met the requirements of due process. After a bench trial, the district court found that the written notices were confusing, lacked sufficient individualized detail to explain the state’s decisions, and failed to enable recipients to understand or meaningfully challenge their benefit terminations. The court also found that other sources of information available to recipients, such as call centers or online resources, did not cure these deficiencies. The district court issued a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction, requiring Florida to provide clear and case-specific information in future notices before terminating Medicaid benefits for income ineligibility.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Florida’s notice system, considered as a whole, did not satisfy due process because it was not reasonably calculated to adequately inform recipients of the reasons for benefit termination or enable them to decide whether to contest the action. View "Chianne D. v. Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administ" on Justia Law

The dispute arose after the United States constructed navigation structures in the Catahoula Basin, raising water levels and affecting property in the area. Landowners in the basin, divided into Lake Plaintiffs and Swamp Plaintiffs, brought a class action against the State of Louisiana, alleging unlawful expropriation of their land and seeking damages, a declaration of ownership, and recovery of mineral royalties. The central factual issue was how to classify the Catahoula Basin: the Lake Plaintiffs argued it was part of the Little River’s banks, entitling them to ownership, while the State argued it was a lake owned by the state.After a bench trial in the Ninth Judicial District Court, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing the Lake and Swamp Plaintiffs as owners of the disputed lands, awarding damages for inverse condemnation, and granting attorney fees. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed most of the judgment but shifted the attorney fee burden entirely to the plaintiffs’ common fund. The Louisiana Supreme Court then held that plaintiffs’ compensation claims had prescribed, reversing the damages awards but leaving the attorney fee issue unresolved. When the trial court subsequently recalculated attorney fees using the lodestar method, the appellate court increased the award by applying a fourfold multiplier, finding the initial fee too low given the case’s complexity and duration.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the attorney fee award and found that while a multiplier was warranted due to the exceptional duration, risk, and complexity of the litigation, the appellate court’s fourfold multiplier was excessive given the high hourly rate used in the lodestar calculation. The court reduced the multiplier to three, setting the attorney fee at $16,713,656.20, and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment as amended. The matter was remanded for the trial court to determine appropriate reserves and payment arrangements. View "CROOKS VS. STATE" on Justia Law

A group of DirecTV subscribers, both residential and commercial, brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the National Football League (NFL) and its member teams engaged in anticompetitive conduct. The subscribers claimed that the NFL’s interlocking agreements—including pooling telecast rights, exclusive distribution through DirecTV, and arrangements with networks—suppressed competition for out-of-market NFL games. These agreements allegedly forced subscribers to pay inflated prices for the “Sunday Ticket” package, which bundled NFL games not otherwise available in their local markets.The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially allowed the case to proceed, certifying classes and admitting expert testimony by the plaintiffs’ economists. After trial, a jury found the NFL liable on antitrust grounds and awarded substantial damages to the subscribers. However, the district court later excluded the plaintiffs’ expert testimony, finding it unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the NFL. In the alternative, the district court conditionally ordered a new trial on damages, concluding the jury’s damages calculation was not supported by the evidence and was improperly derived.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the plaintiffs’ expert testimony, ruling that while experts’ methods and opinions may be impeachable, such disputes are for the jury to resolve unless the methods are fundamentally unreliable or speculative. However, the appellate court agreed that a new trial on damages was warranted because the jury’s award was based on an improper calculation method. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law, affirmed the order granting a new trial on damages, remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s liability verdict, and directed a new trial limited to the issue of damages. View "NINTH INNING INC. V. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC." on Justia Law

The plaintiff worked as a cleanup worker in Pascagoula, Mississippi, following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, allegedly exposed to crude oil and chemical dispersants through inhalation and direct contact. He claimed this exposure caused a chronic worsening of his preexisting asthma. The plaintiff sued BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company under the Back-End Litigation Option (BELO) of the Medical Settlement Agreement related to the Deepwater Horizon class-action litigation. The parties stipulated to venue in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.The litigation required the plaintiff to prove that his injuries were legally caused by exposure to oil spill-related substances. He proffered two experts, Dr. Michael Freeman and Dr. Shawn French, to establish causation. BP moved to exclude their testimony and for summary judgment. The district court denied the plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing, excluded the expert testimony, and granted summary judgment in favor of BP, finding that the expert evidence was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to causation. The plaintiff timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that toxic tort causation standards, requiring expert testimony to establish both general and specific causation, apply under maritime law for BELO claims involving non-readily observable injuries with multiple possible etiologies. The Fifth Circuit found the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the plaintiff’s experts, both for lack of reliability and relevance under Rule 702 and Daubert, and for deficiencies in qualifications and methodology. The district court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed. View "Dufour v. BP Exploration & Production" on Justia Law