Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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