Plaintiffs were four customers who purchased cable television, internet, or telephone services from Charter Communications Entertainment I, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc. (together, Charter). After a severe snow storm, Plaintiffs sued Charter on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others claimed to be similarly situated, contending that Charter violated various duties by failing to provide credits to its customers for their loss of service during the storm. Charter removed the case to federal court, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act (Act).. The federal district court subsequently granted Charter’s motion to dismiss, finding that the claims of three Plaintiffs were moot because they had received credits covering the time they were without service and that, as to the fourth plaintiff, the complaint failed to state a claim. The First Circuit vacated in part the district court’s opinion, holding that the district court (1) properly exercised its jurisdiction under the Act; but (2) erred in granting Charter’s motion to dismiss, as all four plaintiffs may pursue their requests for declaratory relief regarding their dispute with Charter over the nature of its obligations to them, and Plaintiffs’ complaint pleaded facts sufficient to plausibly show that they were entitled to relief on some of their claims. View "Cooper v. Charter Cmmc’ns Ents. I, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Mellon, seeking to represent a class of Arkansas homeowners facing non-judicial foreclosures by Mellon. After plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to remand to state court and then granted Mellon's motion to dismiss, the district court awarded Mellon costs despite Mellon's failure to file a verified affidavit substantiating the costs. The court concluded that 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1)'s one-year removal limitation is inapplicable in this case based on 28 U.S.C. 1453(b). Therefore, Mellon was not required to remove this class action within one year of plaintiff's original complaint. Because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the only named plaintiff was a citizen of Arkansas at the time of commencement and removal, and no defendant is a citizen of Arkansas, this class action falls within the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1332(a). Plaintiff's challenge to the district court's dismissal of his complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) was foreclosed by the court's decision in Rivera v. JPMorgan Chase Bank. Finally, the district court legally erred in awarding costs to Mellon where Mellon provided no affidavit substantiating the costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to remand and dismiss the case, but reversed the award of costs and remanded with instructions. View "Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against Lebo, alleging violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code 12940 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the trial court's order granting defendants' motion to compel him to arbitrate his individual claims, as well as defendants' motion to dismiss all class claims without prejudice. The court held that the question whether the parties agreed to class arbitration was for the arbitrator rather than the trial court to decide, and that the trial court erred by deciding that issue in this case. The court did not reach the merits of whether the arbitration provisions plaintiff signed permit arbitration. The court also did not address plaintiff's argument that the trial court failed to consider extrinsic evidence demonstrating that the parties impliedly agreed to arbitrate on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive" on Justia Law

Lucky filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Superior Court's decision to decline to appoint a temporary judge for the purpose of ruling on motions for preliminary and final approval of a settlement. The court concluded that the California Constitution, the California Rules of Court, and public policy concerns preclude the appointment of a temporary judge for purposes of approving the settlement of a pre-certification class action. When the class had not yet been certified, the putative class representative has no authority to consent to a temporary judge on behalf of the absent putative class members. Therefore, the court denied the writ petition. View "Luckey v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In this case, a thief stole a health care provider’s computer containing medical records of about four million patients. The plaintiffs filed an action under the Confidentiality Act, seeking to represent as a class, all of the patients whose records were stolen, with a potential award of about $4 billion against the health care provider. The health care provider demurred to the complaint and moved to strike the class allegations, but the trial court overruled the demurrer and denied the motion to strike. On petition of the health care provider, the Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ of mandate to review the trial court’s rulings. After that review, the Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act because they did not allege that the stolen medical information was actually viewed by an unauthorized person. The Court therefore granted the health care provider’s petition for a peremptory writ of mandate and directed the trial court to sustain the health care provider’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismiss the action. View "Sutter Health v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In the 1990s, Defendants (Employers) created a sick-leave policy allowing employees to bank their sick leave in a continued illness bank (CIB). In 2002, Employers modified the terms of the CIB to create the CIB pay-out benefit, which allowed a capped amount of unused CIB hours to be paid to departing employees who completed twenty-five years or more of service. In 2008, Employers terminated the CIB pay-out benefit, and only employees who had reached twenty-five years of employment with Employers were entitled to their earned but unused CIB hours upon termination. Plaintiffs in this case represented employees who had not reached twenty-five years of service before the benefit ended. Plaintiffs brought a class action complaint against Employers. The district court granted summary judgment for Employers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that (1) Employers’ policies did not constitute a standardized group employment contract; (2) the CIB pay-out benefit was not deferred compensation or wages under the Montana Wage and Wage Protection Act; and (3) the covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims.View "Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

Appellants John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3 separately sued Respondents the Bishop of Charleston and the Bishop of the Diocese of Charleston in his official capacity (respondents). The cases were consolidated, and respondents moved to dismiss on the pleadings. The trial court granted the motion. In 2007, respondents entered into a class action settlement agreement (the settlement) to settle the claims of "[a]ll individuals born on or before August 30, 1980 who, as minors, were sexually abused at any time by agents or employees of the Diocese of Charleston" as well as their spouses and parents, except those whose claims had been independently resolved. The settlement established a fund from which awards would be made to claimants who established their sexual abuse claims by arbitration. Appellants alleged they did not receive notice of the settlement. In 2009, after the claims and opt-out period provided for in the settlement had expired, they brought suit alleging claims of the type covered by the settlement. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the language of the settlement did not waive its res judicata effect as to future claimants, so that appellants were not entitled to treatment as class claimants; (2) however, dismissal on the pleadings was not warranted on the questions whether appellants were deprived of notice or adequate representation in the underlying class settlement and, if so, whether the statute of limitations was tolled on their claim of negligent supervision. If appellants could establish on remand that they were denied due process owing to lack of notice or because of inadequate representation in the class action proceedings, and that the statute of limitations was tolled, the Supreme Court held that they could proceed on their claims. View "Doe v. The Bishop of Charleston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were five independent retail pharmacies licensed in California, and Defendants were prescription drug claims processors. In 2002, Plaintiffs filed a federal class action suit alleging that Defendants failed to comply with Cal. Civil Code 2527, which requires prescription drug claims processors to compile and summarize information on pharmacy fees and transmit that information to their clients. The district court dismissed the cases for lack of standing without reaching the merits. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Plaintiffs had standing, reversed the district court, and remanded. On remand, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that section 2527 unconstitutionally compels speech in violation of the California and U.S. Constitutions. The district court denied the motions. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to answer a question of state law. The Supreme Court answered by holding (1) section 2527 implicates the right to free speech guaranteed by the California Constitution and is subject to rational basis review; and (2) the statute satisfies that standard because the compelled factual disclosures are reasonably related to the Legislature's legitimate objective of promoting informed decisionmaking about prescription drug reimbursement rates.View "Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt." on Justia Law

Steve Sangwin, a State employee, was a qualified subscriber and beneficiary of the State of Montana Employee Benefits Plan (Plan), which was administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (BCBS). Steve's daughter, McKinley, was also a beneficiary under the Plan. This case arose after BCBS denied a preauthorization request for a medical procedure for McKinley on the grounds that the procedure was "experimental for research." Steve and his wife (collectively, the Sangwins) initiated this action by filing an amended complaint setting forth five counts, including a request for certification of a class action. The Sangwins defined class members as other beneficiaries of the Plan who had their employee benefits denied by the State based on the experimental exclusion for research in the past eight years. The district court granted the Sangwins' motion for class certification. The State appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's order defining the class; but (2) reversed and remanded with respect to the question certified for class treatment, holding that the district court abused its discretion in specifying for class treatment the question of whether the State breached its contract of insurance with the plaintiffs.View "Sangwin v. State" on Justia Law

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (H&P) appeals a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, who are a class of oil and gas royalty owners. The class alleged that the defendant breached contractual and fiduciary duties by allowing uncompensated drainage of natural gas to occur from the leases and that the defendant engaged in constructive fraud and was unjustly enriched by failing to pay royalty amounts that the class alleged were included in a settlement between the defendant and ANR Pipeline. The jury returned verdicts on three alternative theories of recovery. The trial court judge granted judgment that included disgorgement of profits based on a sum the trial court found unjustly enriched H&P. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. H&P argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that: (1) the trial court erred in its jury instructions for uncompensated drainage that barred consideration of counterdrainage; (2) the appellate court erred by allowing a breach of contract claim to be recast as an equitable unjust enrichment claim; (3) the appellate court erred in affirming a "mathematically impossible" jury verdict on plaintiffs' constructive fraud claims; and (4) the appellate court erred in affirming the constructive fraud damage award notwithstanding that no fraud claim was ever certified. After review, the Supreme Court found: (1) the trial court committed no reversible error; (2) the jury found that plaintiffs did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that H&P acted in reckless disregard for the rights of others, nor that H&P acted intentionally and with malice toward others; (3) because the Court reversed the judgment based on equity, the third reason for granting certiorari was answered; and (4) having reversed the constructive fraud damage award, the Court held this issue was moot. View "Krug v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc." on Justia Law