This case involved arbitration proceedings stemming from plaintiff's class action suit alleging, among other things, that SouthernLINC's termination fees were unlawful penalties under Georgia law. SouthernLINC, a wireless provider, appealed the district court's denial of its motion to vacate two arbitration awards. Under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, the court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers under section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., either in construing the arbitration clause as he did or in certifying a class. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Southern Communications Serv. v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a class action suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty to plan participants. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed Counts I and IV of the amended complaint which alleged that Idearc Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing plan participants to buy and hold Idearc stock when it was no longer prudent to do so where the amended complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to overcome the "presumption of prudence" the court adopted in Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy Inc. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for inaccurate disclosures and nondisclosures (Count II) where plaintiff alleged no specific circumstance or specific injury mandating the Idearc Defendants disclose non-public information to plan participants and no general duty to disclose non-public information existed under ERISA or under the court's precedents. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims. View "Kopp v. Klein, et al." on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals comprised two putative class actions brought by skycaps affiliated with two major airlines. After Defendants, the airlines, each introduced a $2 per bag fee for curbside service for departing passengers at airports that did not inure to the benefit of the skycaps, Plaintiffs sued the airlines for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, among other claims. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment and tortious interference claims as preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). Plaintiffs appealed, contending that the ADA does not preempt common-law claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed after an analysis of statutory language, congressional intent, and case law, holding that the ADA preempted Plaintiffs' common-law claims. View "Brown v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Investors in Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. brought a class action against the mortgage originator alleging violations of the Securities Act based on omissions and misrepresentations in the stock offering documents. The district court dismissed on the grounds that it found no omissions or misrepresentations in the offering documents, and if there were, they were not material. Plaintiffs broadly challenged all of the district court's holdings. Finding no error in the district court's ruling, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Slater v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant XTO Energy, Inc. appealed a district court's certification of a class of Kansas royalty owners who sought recovery for its alleged underpayment of royalties. Specifically, the class claimed XTO violated Kansas law by improperly deducting costs for placing gas into a "marketable condition." After careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the class did not meet Rule 23(a)'s commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements or Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. Furthermore, the Court found the class' argument in favor of certification through collateral or judicial estoppel unavailing. The class certification order was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Trust v. XTO Energy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. On appeal, Auto-Owners challenged the district court's certification of a class for those policy owners whose policies were issued in North Dakota. The court reversed, concluding that the certified class did not meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23 where the reasonableness of any claim payment may have to be individually analyzed and, therefore, the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class. View "Halvorson, et al. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against Vital for its distribution of ZERO IMPACT protein bars that were erroneously marketed and labeled as having little to no impact on blood sugar. On appeal, Vital challenged the district court's sua sponte order remanding the suit to state court for failure to establish the amount in controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1). The court reversed and remanded, concluding that the undisputed Cimino declarations were sufficient to establish that CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy requirement was met. View "Watkins v. Vital Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law

After Carnival's cruise ship, the Costa Concordia, ran aground off the coast of Italy, two separate actions were filed by groups of 56 and 48 plaintiffs in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. Carnival removed both actions to district court, claiming that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the mass-action provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4. Plaintiffs moved for remand to state court on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction and the district court granted the motion. The court affirmed, concluding that the cases were improvidently removed and should have been remanded where, under the plain language of CAFA and 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(11), the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' two separate actions unless they proposed to try 100 or more persons' claims jointly. View "Scimone, et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, an association of authors and several individual authors, filed suit against Google alleging that it committed copyright infringement through the Library Project of its "Google Books" search tool by scanning and indexing more than 20 million books and making available for public display "snippets" of most books upon a user's search. On appeal, Google challenged the district court's grant of class certification. The court believed that the resolution of Google's fair use defense in the first instance would necessarily inform and perhaps moot the court's analysis of many class certification issues and that holding the issue of certification in abeyance until Google's fair use defense has been resolved would not prejudice the interests of either party. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to consider the fair use issues. View "The Authors Guild Inc., et al. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Exchange is a reciprocal insurance exchange, under 40 PA. STAT. 961. Members purchase insurance policies and receive indemnification for losses out of Exchange’s pool of funds. A 2012 Complaint alleged that Exchange is owned by subscribers and has no independent officers or governing body; that Indemnity is a public corporation that serves as Exchange’s attorney-in-fact; that Indemnity is permitted to retain up to 25% of Exchange’s premiums; that the balance of premiums is to be used for insurance losses and operational costs and may be distributed to Exchange members as dividends at Indemnity’s discretion; that members who pay premiums in installments must pay service charges and are subject to late payment and policy reinstatement fees; that, beginning in 1997, Indemnity began to retained for itself service charges paid to Exchange, which belonged to Exchange; and that, beginning in 2008, Indemnity misappropriated fees, totaling more than $300 million. The complaint was filed for Exchange by certain members and “on behalf of” all other members. Contending that the words “on behalf of” converted the case into a class action, Indemnity removed the case to federal court. The district court remanded to state court. The Third Circuit affirmed, stating that the case was brought under state rules that bear no resemblance to Rule 23 in that they allow for suits by entities, not a conglomerate of individuals, and does not meet the statutory definition of “class action.” View "Erie Ins. Exch. v. Erie Indem. Co" on Justia Law