Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Local Puerto Rico merchants brought unfair competition claims against major big-box retailers, alleging that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. violated executive orders limiting sales to essential goods. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants continued to sell non-essential items, capturing sales that would have otherwise gone to local retailers, and sought damages for lost sales during the 72-day period the orders were in effect.The case was initially filed as a putative class action in Puerto Rico's Court of First Instance. Costco removed the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court denied Costco's motion to sever the claims against it and also denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court. The district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims but allowed the unfair competition claim to proceed. However, it later denied class certification and granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the executive orders did not create an enforceable duty on the part of Costco and Wal-Mart.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case on jurisdictional grounds. The court held that CAFA jurisdiction is not lost when a district court denies class certification. It also held that CAFA's "home state" exception did not apply because Costco, a non-local defendant, was a primary defendant. However, the court found that CAFA's "local controversy" exception applied because the conduct of Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, a local defendant, formed a significant basis for the claims. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Costco's motion to sever and determined that the entire case should be remanded to the Puerto Rico courts. The court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to remand, vacated the judgment on the merits for lack of jurisdiction, and instructed the district court to remand the case to the Puerto Rico courts. View "Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

Sophia Zhou and other investors filed a federal securities fraud class action against Desktop Metal, Inc. and several of its corporate officers after the company's stock price dropped in late 2021. The stock lost value following Desktop Metal's disclosure of an internal investigation that revealed corporate mismanagement and necessitated the recall of two key products. Zhou alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent schemes, including manufacturing Flexcera resin at non-FDA-registered facilities and marketing the PCA 4000 curing box for use with Flexcera without FDA certification.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Zhou's complaint for failure to state a claim. Zhou appealed, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing her "scheme liability" claim and that she adequately stated a securities fraud claim based on material misrepresentations and omissions. The district court had found that Zhou did not preserve her scheme liability claim and that her complaint failed to plead any materially false or misleading statement or omission.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that Zhou did not preserve her scheme liability claim because she failed to adequately argue it in her opposition to the motion to dismiss or in her supplemental briefing. The court also determined that the district court correctly found that Zhou's complaint did not allege any materially false or misleading statements. Specifically, the court held that statements about Flexcera's FDA clearance, regulatory compliance, and product qualities were not rendered misleading by the alleged omissions. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Zhou's complaint. View "Zhou v. Desktop Metal, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, alleging anticompetitive practices in violation of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs had purchased tickets through Ticketmaster’s website, which required them to agree to Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use. These terms included an arbitration agreement mandating that disputes be resolved by an arbitrator from New Era ADR, using expedited/mass arbitration procedures.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the clause delegating the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator was unconscionable under California law, both procedurally and substantively. The court also held that the entire arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The defendants appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement as a whole were unconscionable under California law. The court found that the delegation clause was part of a contract of adhesion and that the terms on Ticketmaster’s website exhibited extreme procedural unconscionability. Additionally, the court identified several features of New Era’s arbitration rules that contributed to substantive unconscionability, including the mass arbitration protocol, lack of discovery, limited right of appeal, and arbitrator selection provisions.The Ninth Circuit also held that the application of California’s unconscionability law to the arbitration agreement was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As an alternate and independent ground, the court held that the FAA does not preempt California’s prohibition of class action waivers in contracts of adhesion in large-scale small-stakes consumer cases, as established in Discover Bank v. Superior Court. The court concluded that Ticketmaster’s Terms and New Era’s Rules were independently unconscionable under Discover Bank. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "HECKMAN V. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC." on Justia Law

TD Ameritrade offers brokerage services to retail investors, allowing them to trade stocks through its online platform. The company routes customer orders to trading venues for execution. Roderick Ford, representing a group of investors, alleged that TD Ameritrade's order-routing practices violated the company's duty of best execution by prioritizing venues that paid the company the most money rather than those providing the best outcomes for customers. Ford claimed this violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that CEO Frederic J. Tomczyk was jointly liable under § 20(a) of the Act.A magistrate judge initially recommended denying Ford's motion for class certification due to the predominance of individual questions of economic loss. However, the district court certified a class, believing Ford's expert's algorithm could address these issues. The Eighth Circuit reversed this decision, stating individual inquiries were still necessary. Ford then proposed a new class definition and moved again for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), (b)(2), and (c)(4). The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3) and alternatively under Rule 23(b)(2) and (c)(4).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's certification order for abuse of discretion. The court found that Ford's new theory of economic loss, based on commissions paid, did not align with the previous definition of economic loss and still required individualized inquiries. Consequently, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also found that the alternative certifications under Rule 23(b)(2) and (c)(4) were improper due to the predominance of individual issues and the lack of cohesiveness among class members. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to modernize the billing system for the Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The rollout in 2013 resulted in billing errors, leading the City to sue PwC in 2015, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. Concurrently, a class action was filed against the City by Antwon Jones, represented by attorney Jack Landskroner, for overbilling. Discovery revealed that the City’s special counsel had orchestrated the class action to settle claims favorably for the City while planning to recover costs from PwC.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City engaged in extensive discovery abuse to conceal its misconduct, including withholding documents and providing false testimony. The court imposed $2.5 million in monetary sanctions against the City under the Civil Discovery Act, specifically sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, which allow sanctions for discovery misuse.The California Court of Appeal reversed the sanctions, interpreting the Civil Discovery Act as not granting general authority to impose sanctions for discovery misconduct beyond specific discovery methods. The appellate court held that sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize sanctions but must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act.The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the trial court did have the authority to impose monetary sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for the City’s pattern of discovery abuse. The Supreme Court clarified that these sections provide general authority to sanction discovery misuse, including systemic abuses not covered by specific discovery method provisions. View "City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over attorneys' fees following a $1 billion settlement in litigation challenging Dell Technologies' redemption of Class V stock. The plaintiff, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, alleged that Dell Technologies, controlled by Michael Dell and Silver Lake Group LLC, redeemed the Class V stock at an unfair price. The litigation was complex, involving extensive discovery and expert testimony, and was settled on the eve of trial.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware awarded 26.67% of the settlement, or $266.7 million, as attorneys' fees. Pentwater Capital Management LP and other class members objected, arguing that the fee was excessive and that a declining percentage method should be applied, similar to federal securities law cases. The Court of Chancery rejected this argument, holding that Delaware law, as established in Sugarland Industries, Inc. v. Thomas and Americas Mining Corp. v. Theriault, does not mandate a declining percentage approach. The court found that the $1 billion settlement was a significant achievement and that the fee award was justified based on the results achieved, the time and effort of counsel, and other relevant factors.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Chancery's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Chancery did not exceed its discretion in awarding 26.67% of the settlement as attorneys' fees. The court emphasized that the Sugarland factors, particularly the results achieved, are paramount in determining fee awards. The Supreme Court also noted that while a declining percentage approach is permissible, it is not mandatory, and the Court of Chancery adequately justified its decision not to apply it in this case. View "In re Dell Technologies Inc." on Justia Law

Ryan Cox filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the defendants manipulated the price of a cryptocurrency called HEX by artificially lowering its ranking on CoinMarketCap.com. The defendants include two domestic companies, a foreign company, and three individual officers of the foreign company. Cox claimed that the manipulation caused HEX to trade at lower prices, benefiting the defendants financially.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Cox needed to show the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona before invoking the Commodity Exchange Act's nationwide service of process provision. The court found that none of the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes nationwide service of process independent of its venue requirement. The court concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the U.S. defendants, CoinMarketCap and Binance.US, because they had sufficient contacts with the United States. The court also found that Cox's claims against these defendants were colorable under the Commodity Exchange Act. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the U.S. defendants and remanded for further proceedings.However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the foreign defendants, Binance Capital and its officers, due to their lack of sufficient contacts with the United States. The court vacated the dismissal "with prejudice" and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint against the foreign defendants without prejudice. View "COX V. COINMARKETCAP OPCO, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-investors brought a securities fraud class action against Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors, and its CEO, Peter Rawlinson. They alleged that Rawlinson made misrepresentations about Lucid's production capabilities, which affected the stock price of Churchill Capital Corp. IV (CCIV), a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) in which the plaintiffs were shareholders. These misrepresentations were made before Lucid was acquired by CCIV. Plaintiffs purchased CCIV stock based on these statements but did not own any Lucid stock, as Lucid was privately held at the time.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially held that the plaintiffs had statutory standing but dismissed the action for failure to allege a material misrepresentation. The court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint, but ultimately denied the amendments as futile and dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged materiality.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal on an alternative ground. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, following the Birnbaum Rule, which limits standing to purchasers or sellers of the stock in question. The court agreed with the Second Circuit's precedent in Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd., holding that purchasers of a security of an acquiring company (CCIV) do not have standing to sue the target company (Lucid) for alleged misstatements made prior to the merger. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. View "MAX ROYAL LLC V. ATIEVA, INC." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Frequency Therapeutics, a biotech startup that was developing a treatment for severe sensorineural hearing loss called "FX-322". Initial trials were positive, but subsequent testing yielded disappointing results, causing a sharp drop in Frequency's stock price. Three stockholders filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. They claimed that Frequency's CEO, David Lucchino, and its Chief Development Officer, Carl LeBel, knew of problems with the study before the results were announced, yet gave investors assurances to the contrary.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants had made the false statements with the degree of scienter required to state a Securities and Exchange Act claim. The court noted that the complaint did not provide specific facts about when the defendants learned of the adverse events, which was a glaring omission. The court also found that the increase in stock sales by the CEO was not sufficient to establish an inference of scienter on its own. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations, taken collectively, did not give rise to a strong inference of scienter. View "Quinones v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law

A class of individuals and businesses in Northern California, who paid health insurance premiums to certain health plans, sued Sutter Health, a healthcare system operator in the region. They alleged that Sutter abused its market power to charge supracompetitive rates to these health plans, which were then passed on to the class in the form of higher premiums. The case went to trial on claims under California’s Cartwright Act for tying and unreasonable course of conduct. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sutter.The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury to consider Sutter’s anticompetitive purpose and by excluding evidence of Sutter’s conduct before 2006. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs. It held that the district court contravened California law by removing “purpose” from the jury instructions, and that the legal error was not harmless. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in excluding as minimally relevant all evidence of Sutter’s conduct before 2006. The court concluded that these errors were prejudicial and reversed the district court’s judgment, remanding the case for a new trial. View "SIDIBE V. SUTTER HEALTH" on Justia Law