Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Two individuals, who were patients of a regional healthcare provider, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the provider’s website used tracking software to intercept and share users’ personally identifiable health information with a third-party technology company. This software, known as Meta Pixel, collected data such as IP addresses, device identifiers, and details about users’ interactions with the website, transmitting this information to the technology company, which then used it for commercial purposes, including targeted advertising. The healthcare provider also received data analysis from the technology company and was paid for allowing access to this information. The plaintiffs claimed they did not consent to this sharing of their health information.After the claims against the technology company were transferred to another district, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed several amended complaints against the healthcare provider. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that the allegations did not sufficiently specify what personal health information was actually shared and that further amendment would be futile. When the plaintiffs sought reconsideration and submitted a proposed third amended complaint, the District Court denied the motion, citing undue delay because the plaintiffs could have included the new details earlier and had been clearly informed of the deficiencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed both orders of the District Court. The Third Circuit held that, although plaintiffs had Article III standing, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice or in denying the motion for reconsideration. The appellate court concluded that plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the complaint’s deficiencies after oral argument and did not act promptly to address them, justifying denial of further amendment. View "Santoro v. Tower Health" on Justia Law

A family group brought claims in Oklahoma state court against an energy company, alleging underpayment of oil and gas royalties over several decades. These claims overlapped with those in a separate class action brought by another party against the company and its related entities, also concerning underpayment of royalties. The class action was removed to federal court, where a settlement was reached and approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The settlement covered claims for a defined period, and included a permanent injunction barring class members from pursuing similar claims. The family did not opt out of the settlement and received compensation under its terms.Later, the energy company sought summary judgment in the family’s original state case, arguing that the federal settlement released the company from liability for claims during the covered period. When summary judgment was denied, the company returned to the federal district court, seeking enforcement of the settlement’s injunction against further pursuit of those claims by the family in state court. The federal court declined to issue a new injunction but found that the family’s ongoing litigation of released claims violated the original injunction. The court ordered the family to either show cause for their violation or agree to abide by the injunction and dismiss the released claims. The family appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.The Tenth Circuit determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the order. The court held that a post-judgment civil contempt or enforcement order is not final and appealable unless the district court both finds contempt and imposes a specific, unavoidable sanction. Because the district court’s order did neither, and because no alternative grounds for appellate jurisdiction applied, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Fischer v. XTO Energy" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, one individual and one advocacy organization, filed suit against a ridesharing company, alleging discrimination against persons with mobility-related disabilities. They claimed the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) by failing to make wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs)—that accommodate fixed-frame wheelchairs—available in all regions it operates, instead of only nine cities. The plaintiffs proposed several modifications to the company’s policies and practices to increase WAV availability in Westchester County, New York, and sought class certification for affected residents and visitors.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a bench trial. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either that the rideshare platform’s limited menu constituted a barrier to WAV access or that their proposed modifications would effectively or reasonably achieve WAV transportation in the relevant regions. The court also determined that the evidence did not show the proposed modifications were likely to be effective, and that the defendant’s proof established the modifications would not be reasonable. As a result, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and considered plaintiffs’ arguments regarding evidentiary burdens and the effectiveness of proposed modifications. The Second Circuit concluded that plaintiffs bore the burden of persuasion as to effectiveness, and only a light burden of production as to reasonableness. The appellate court found no error in the district court’s application of these standards and affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show their proposed modifications would effectively provide WAV service in Westchester County. View "Lowell v. Lyft, Inc." on Justia Law

A healthcare staffing company hired an employee as a travel nurse, requiring him to sign multiple agreements containing arbitration provisions with varying language. When the employee later accepted a temporary assignment at a hospital, he signed an additional agreement incorporating the employer’s most recent arbitration policy. After his assignment ended, the employee filed a class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations against the company.The company responded by filing a motion in the Superior Court of San Diego County to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision from the employee handbook. The employee opposed, arguing that the handbook’s provision was superseded by the newer arbitration agreement incorporated into his most recent assignment. The court denied the motion, finding that the company had relied on the wrong agreement. The company then filed a second motion to compel arbitration, this time based on the updated agreement, but failed to provide the affidavit or explanation required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 for renewed motions. The employee objected, contending that the second motion sought the same relief as the first and was subject to section 1008(b), which the company had not satisfied. The Superior Court agreed, ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider the renewed motion, and denied it.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the trial court properly applied section 1008(b) and whether the second motion was a renewed motion for the same relief. The appellate court held that the company’s second motion sought identical relief as the first—compelling arbitration of the same claims—regardless of which agreement formed the basis. Because the company failed to comply with section 1008(b), the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and the order denying the renewed motion was not appealable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. View "Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions" on Justia Law

A publicly traded Delaware company specializing in plant-based sweeteners became the subject of a merger transaction led by the controlling stockholder of a major suitor, who was also the father of the company’s CEO. Shortly after becoming interim CEO, the son secretly provided his father’s investment firm with confidential and material nonpublic financial information, including a key valuation report. Over the next several months, the CEO continued to share sensitive company data with his father’s entities. The father’s investment firm then accumulated a significant ownership stake in the company and submitted an offer to acquire it. The board responded by forming a Special Committee and attempting to restrict the CEO’s involvement, but after he refused to sign a confidentiality agreement, he was placed on leave. Despite this, he was later given access to confidential board materials and attended meetings regarding the sale process.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware reviewed the case after the plaintiff, a stockholder, brought a class action challenging the merger and related conduct. The plaintiff alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, statutory violations under 8 Del. C. § 203, and conversion. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged that the board’s process was grossly negligent, noting the board’s failure to adequately wall off the conflicted CEO and its misleading proxy statement to stockholders. As a result, the statutory safe harbors under 8 Del. C. § 144(a)(1) and (a)(2) were unavailable at the pleading stage.The court held that claims could proceed against the CEO and the executive chairman, who had negotiated a lucrative consulting agreement in connection with the merger. It dismissed the remaining directors, finding them disinterested and not alleged to have acted in bad faith. The court also dismissed the statutory and conversion claims, holding that the challenged stockholder vote satisfied Section 203’s requirements and that deficiencies in the proxy statement did not render the merger invalid. View "Dodiya v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Google was accused of violating the privacy rights of users in the United States by continuing to track and store their location data even after users had disabled the “Location History” feature on their devices. The lawsuit, brought as a class action on behalf of approximately 247.7 million individuals, consolidated multiple complaints. The parties ultimately negotiated a settlement that included both injunctive relief—requiring Google to alter its practices—and a $62 million fund. This settlement fund was to cover attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, service awards for class representatives, and administrative expenses. The remaining funds were to be distributed to selected nonprofit organizations with a focus on internet privacy, rather than directly to class members.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, after conducting a fairness hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), overruled objections from certain class members. These objectors argued that it was improper to distribute the settlement fund exclusively through the cy pres doctrine without first attempting a direct distribution to class members. The district court found that a direct distribution was infeasible because the pro rata share for each class member would be minimal (less than 25 cents) and administrative costs would further reduce any recovery. It approved the cy pres distribution, finding the selected nonprofit recipients had a substantial nexus to the class’s privacy interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The appellate court held that the district court properly considered the relevant factors under amended Rule 23(e), did not improperly presume the fairness of the settlement, and acted within its discretion in approving a cy pres-only monetary distribution where direct payments were deemed infeasible and not verifiable. The court also found the selection of cy pres recipients appropriate and declined to address new constitutional arguments not presented below. The holding is that cy pres-only distributions are permissible in class settlements when direct distribution is infeasible and the selected recipients have a substantial nexus to the interests of the class. View "PATACSIL V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

Four individuals who were or are patients of a health care system brought a proposed class action against the system, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). They claimed the health care provider installed web tracking technologies, specifically Meta Pixel and Google Analytics, on its various websites, including a public health risk assessment (HRA) site and a password-protected patient portal. According to the plaintiffs, these tools tracked users’ activities, collected their data—including personally identifiable information, health-related communications, and protected health information—and transmitted it to Meta and Google, who then used the data for advertising purposes.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety. The court found that the proposed subclasses—patients who logged into the patient portal and those who submitted HRA forms—were not ascertainable, that individual issues predominated over common ones, and that a class action was not the superior or manageable method. It reasoned that determining whether the tracking technologies’ transmissions constituted “contents” under CIPA or “medical information” under CMIA would require individualized inquiries into each user’s data. The court also concluded plaintiffs had abandoned their CIPA claim under section 632.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appellate court held that the HRA form subclass and the CIPA claim for the patient portal subclass met the requirements for class certification, as key liability questions could be resolved with common proof. However, it affirmed the denial of class certification for the CMIA claim for the patient portal subclass and agreed that plaintiffs forfeited their CIPA section 632 claim. The court found class action treatment was superior and manageable for the certified subclasses. View "Doe v. Adventist Health System/West" on Justia Law

Six landowners in Western Pennsylvania, believing that XTO Energy, Inc. was underpaying royalties owed under oil and gas leases, brought a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. None of the named plaintiffs’ leases included arbitration clauses, but the proposed class definitions were broad enough to cover leaseholders whose leases did contain arbitration clauses. The plaintiffs sought damages on behalf of themselves and similarly situated landowners.After the suit was filed, the District Court oversaw extensive class discovery and certified classes that included some members whose leases had arbitration clauses. XTO did not assert arbitration as a defense in its answers or move to compel arbitration before class certification or before the expiration of the class opt-out period. It only moved to compel arbitration against those unnamed class members with arbitration clauses after the opt-out period closed. Relying in part on the then-controlling district court decision in Valli v. Avis Budget Rental Car Group, LLC, a Magistrate Judge found that XTO had waived its right to arbitrate by demonstrating a preference for litigation over arbitration, and the District Court adopted that ruling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s waiver determination de novo as to legal conclusions and for clear error as to factual findings. The Third Circuit held that, under its intervening precedential decision in Valli v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., a defendant does not waive its right to compel arbitration against unnamed class members with arbitration clauses in their leases merely by litigating prior to class certification, where none of the named plaintiffs are subject to arbitration. The court found XTO’s conduct did not constitute an implied waiver. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order denying XTO’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings. View "Salvatora v. XTO Energy Inc" on Justia Law

A large public pension fund alleged that a government-sponsored enterprise and three of its senior officers made false and misleading statements regarding the company’s exposure to subprime and Alt-A mortgages during a period preceding the 2008 financial crisis. The pension fund claimed that the company’s public statements and disclosures understated its exposure to high-risk loans, while internal documents and risk assessments suggested a much greater level of risk. It further argued that, when the company’s actual exposure came to light, its stock price fell, resulting in significant losses to shareholders.Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied class certification, excluded the pension fund’s expert, and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court concluded that the pension fund failed to establish reliance due to an inability to show that the company’s stock traded in an efficient market, improperly rejected the fund’s price-maintenance theory of fraud, found insufficient evidence to support loss causation and damages, and determined the defendants did not act with scienter. The court also found no actionable misstatements regarding credit-risk and underwriting standards, and dismissed control-person liability claims after finding no underlying securities violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The appellate court held that the pension fund presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the company made materially false or misleading statements regarding its subprime and Alt-A exposure, and that issues of scienter and reliance were present. The court determined that the lower court erred in rejecting the price-maintenance theory and improperly excluded the plaintiff’s expert. It also concluded that the fund should be allowed another opportunity to seek class certification and to present evidence of loss causation and damages. The court reinstated the underlying securities fraud and control-person liability claims for further proceedings. View "OPERS v. FHLMC" on Justia Law

After Missouri legalized recreational marijuana in 2022, local governments were permitted to impose an additional sales tax on dispensaries selling recreational marijuana. Dispensaries passed this tax on to their customers. However, the Missouri Supreme Court later ruled that counties could not levy this additional tax on dispensaries located within incorporated areas such as cities or towns. Following this ruling, a class of customers sued several dispensaries, alleging that the dispensaries unlawfully retained the collected county tax and sought restitution.The dispensaries removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to limit the class to Missouri citizens and moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that the Local Controversy Exception to CAFA applied. The district court initially found that three of the four required elements for the exception were met but that the class had not sufficiently shown that more than two-thirds of its members were Missouri citizens. After a second amendment explicitly limited the class to Missouri citizens, the district court found all requirements met and remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the operative pleading for determining CAFA jurisdiction was the first or second amended complaint. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, held that the most recent amended complaint governs jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit also agreed that the Local Controversy Exception was satisfied and affirmed the district court’s remand order, holding that federal jurisdiction no longer existed once the class was limited to Missouri citizens. View "Vick v. Vertical Enterprise, LLC" on Justia Law