Plaintiffs, limited liability companies, filed class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland seeking relief under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) provisions. These provisions make Medicare a secondary payer when a beneficiary has other insurance coverage. Plaintiffs obtained assignments from Medicare Advantage Organizations and other secondary payers to seek reimbursement from primary payers like the defendants, Government Employees Insurance Company and its affiliates (GEICO). Plaintiffs had no preexisting interest in the claims and were compensated on a contingency basis.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied GEICO's motion to dismiss the case, which argued that the assignments were void as against Maryland public policy based on the doctrines of maintenance, champerty, and barratry. The court found no clear statement of Maryland law on this issue and certified questions to the Supreme Court of Maryland.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that Plaintiffs did not violate Maryland’s barratry statute, which prohibits soliciting another person to sue for personal gain without an existing relationship or interest. Plaintiffs did not solicit secondary payers to file lawsuits but obtained the right to sue in their own names through assignments. The court also held that the common law doctrines of maintenance, champerty, and barratry, to the extent they still apply, do not invalidate Plaintiffs’ assignments. The court concluded that the assignments are not void as against public policy and did not address the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions in the agreements. View "GEICO v. MAO-MSO Recovery II" on Justia Law

In 2015, product liability cases involving the blood-pressure medication Olmesartan were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Adam Slater and his law firm, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, represented over 200 plaintiffs, and the case settled for over $300 million. Subsequently, Anthony Martino, a plaintiff in the MDL, filed a class action in New Jersey state court against his former lawyers, alleging they received contingent fees in violation of New Jersey court rules. The case was removed to federal court and dismissed, with the dismissal affirmed on appeal.Following this, twenty-one individuals represented by the same defendants in the MDL filed a similar action in New Jersey state court, alleging breach of contract, legal malpractice, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to the District Court, citing diversity and federal-question jurisdiction. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, asserting ancillary enforcement jurisdiction, and granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, applying issue preclusion. The court also dismissed the parties' motions for sanctions as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that ancillary enforcement jurisdiction does not confer original jurisdiction sufficient for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The court also found that the plaintiffs' state-law claims did not necessarily raise a federal issue to establish federal-question jurisdiction. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to determine if the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction. Additionally, the court vacated the order dismissing the motions for sanctions as moot, instructing the District Court to consider the merits of each motion. View "Johnson v. Mazie" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this multi-district products liability suit allege that they purchased defective Chrysler Pacifica minivans from FCA, which were recalled due to a risk of battery explosions. After the recall, plaintiffs filed seven putative class action suits, which were consolidated in the Eastern District of Michigan. During discovery, FCA discovered that some plaintiffs had agreed to arbitration clauses when purchasing their minivans and moved to compel arbitration for those plaintiffs. The district court denied FCA’s motion, finding that FCA had waived its right to arbitrate by moving to dismiss the entire complaint.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied FCA’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that FCA had waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with that right, specifically by moving to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The district court made this finding sua sponte, without the plaintiffs raising the issue of waiver.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that a party cannot waive its right to arbitration without knowledge of that right. The court found that FCA did not know about the arbitration clauses until it obtained the relevant purchase agreements through discovery. Additionally, the appellate court determined that the district court erred by raising the issue of waiver on its own, violating the principle of party presentation. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court’s decision was clearly erroneous and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Berzanskis v. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

Janice Hollabaugh authorized her attorney to request her medical records from a health care provider for a personal injury claim. The provider contracted with MRO Corporation to fulfill the request. MRO sent a "Cancellation Invoice" to Hollabaugh’s attorney, stating that the request was canceled and charged a $22.88 fee for searching for the records, even though no records were produced. Hollabaugh reimbursed her attorney for the fee and subsequently filed a class action lawsuit against MRO, alleging that the fee violated the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act.The Circuit Court for Baltimore County determined that Hollabaugh had standing but concluded that the Act authorized MRO’s fee, leading to the dismissal of the case. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the standing decision but also upheld the fee's authorization under the Act. Hollabaugh then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland, which granted certiorari to review the case.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that Hollabaugh had standing to sue because she reimbursed her attorney for the fee, creating a reasonable inference of injury. The Court further held that the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act does not permit a health care provider to charge a preparation fee for a search that does not result in the production of any medical records. The Court reasoned that the statutory language and context imply that fees are only authorized for the retrieval and preparation of existing records. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision on standing but reversed the decision regarding the fee's authorization, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hollabaugh v. MRO Corporation" on Justia Law

In this case, Columbia Legal Services represented farmworkers in a class action against Stemilt AG Services, LLC, alleging forced labor and trafficking. During the litigation, the district court issued a protective order limiting Columbia's use of discovered information outside the case. The order required Columbia to seek court approval before using any discovery materials in other advocacy efforts.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington presided over the initial case. The court issued two protective orders during the discovery process. The first order protected sensitive employment data from the Washington State Employment Security Division. The second order, which is the subject of this appeal, restricted Columbia from using Stemilt's financial and employment records in other advocacy without prior court approval. The district court adopted this order to prevent Columbia from using discovered information outside the litigation, citing concerns about Columbia's intentions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Columbia had standing to appeal the protective order because it directly affected Columbia's ability to use discovered information in its advocacy work. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a broad and undifferentiated protective order without finding "good cause" or identifying specific harm that would result from public disclosure. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's protective order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that discovery is presumptively public and that protective orders require a showing of specific prejudice or harm. View "COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES V. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC" on Justia Law

Melissa Wanna discovered her profile on MyLife, an information broker, which contained a poor reputation score and references to court records. MyLife offered to provide details or remove the profile for a fee. Believing she lost employment opportunities due to this profile, Wanna filed a class action lawsuit against several Lexis entities, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), along with several Minnesota state law claims.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Wanna’s claims, concluding that MyLife was not Lexis’s agent. The court found that the data-licensing agreement between Lexis and MyLife explicitly stated that their relationship was that of independent contractors, not principal and agent. As a result, Wanna’s federal claims, which depended on an agency relationship, failed. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wanna’s state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the dismissal. The appellate court agreed that Wanna’s federal claims required an agency relationship between Lexis and MyLife, which was not established. The court found that MyLife did not have actual or apparent authority to act on Lexis’s behalf, nor did Lexis ratify MyLife’s actions. Additionally, the appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Wanna v. RELX Group, PLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Sheppheard, Tyler Randall, and Adam Perry, on behalf of minor child J.P., filed a class action lawsuit against the Governor of West Virginia and the Acting Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Homeland Security. They sought relief under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, alleging unconstitutional conditions of overcrowding, understaffing, and deferred maintenance in West Virginia's prisons, jails, and juvenile centers. They claimed these conditions amounted to deliberate indifference to their health and safety.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that their injuries were traceable to the actions of the Governor or the Secretary, or that their injuries would be redressed by a favorable decision. The court noted that the issues were largely due to funding decisions by the West Virginia legislature, which was not a party to the suit. The court also highlighted that the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, not the Governor or the Secretary, had the authority to address the conditions in the facilities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show that their injuries were caused by the Governor's or the Secretary's actions. The court also found that the requested relief, such as appropriations and policy changes, could not be granted by the court as it lacked the power to compel the Governor or the Secretary to take such actions. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' injuries were not redressable through the requested judicial intervention. View "Sheppheard v. Morrisey" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing a class of drivers, alleged that Progressive Specialty Insurance and Progressive Advanced Insurance systematically underestimated the actual cash value (ACV) of their totaled vehicles, thereby breaching their insurance agreements. The plaintiffs claimed that Progressive's method of calculating ACV, which included a "Projected Sold Adjustment" (PSA) to account for the fact that used cars often sell for less than their listed prices, was improper and resulted in underpayment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified two damages classes, finding that the plaintiffs' claims centered on the legitimacy of the PSAs and that this issue could be resolved on a class-wide basis. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing and rejected Progressive's arguments against commonality, predominance, superiority, and adequacy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the District Court had abused its discretion in certifying the classes. The Third Circuit held that proving whether Progressive undercompensated each class member was an individual issue that could not be resolved on a class-wide basis. The court emphasized that the key issue was whether each class member received less than the true ACV of their vehicle, which would require individualized inquiries. As a result, the court found that common issues did not predominate over individual ones, and the District Court's certification of the classes was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A group of nine plaintiffs, led by Alexander Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against the Cook County Sheriff, challenging a policy at the Cook County Jail that destroys inmates' government-issued identification cards if left unclaimed after the inmate is transferred to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). The plaintiffs argued that this policy violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, finding that precedent foreclosed each of the plaintiffs' claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim was foreclosed by the precedent set in Lee v. City of Chicago. The court also found that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were indistinguishable from those rejected in Conyers v. City of Chicago and Kelley-Lomax v. City of Chicago. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims but did not appeal the procedural due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Fourth Amendment claim was foreclosed by Lee, which rejected the notion of a "continuing seizure" of lawfully seized property. The court also found that the Fifth Amendment takings claim failed because the plaintiffs had abandoned their property by not following the jail's property retrieval procedures. Finally, the court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim failed because the plaintiffs did not show the inadequacy of state law remedies or an independent constitutional violation. View "Carter v. Cook County Sheriff" on Justia Law

Estefany Martinez, a former Amazon employee, worked as a Fulfillment Associate at the Baltimore Fulfillment Center from June 2017 to November 2021. She and other employees were required to clock out before undergoing a post-shift security screening process, for which they were not compensated. Martinez brought a backpack into the work area, which required her to use the bag scan lane during the security screening, often resulting in delays. Data showed that the time taken to exit the facility after clocking out varied, with some instances exceeding five minutes.Martinez filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which was later removed to federal court. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified a question to the Supreme Court of Maryland regarding the applicability of the de minimis doctrine to claims under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. The district court granted Martinez’s Motion for Class Certification and stayed the case pending the resolution of the certified question.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the de minimis doctrine, as described in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Company, applies to claims brought under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The court concluded that the doctrine, which disregards negligible periods of work time, is consistent with the legislative intent of the Maryland Wage Laws, which are patterned after the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court answered the certified question in the affirmative, confirming that the de minimis rule applies to the Maryland Wage Laws. View "Martinez v. Amazon" on Justia Law