Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff John Doe filed a class action lawsuit against Integris Health, Inc., alleging that Integris collected confidential health information from its website visitors and unlawfully shared it with third parties like Google and Facebook. Doe's complaint, filed in Oklahoma state court, asserted state law claims including negligence, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Integris removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, claiming it was acting under the direction of a federal officer by helping the federal government achieve its objective of ensuring patient access to electronic health records (EHR).The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma remanded the case to state court, concluding that Integris had not demonstrated it was "acting under" the direction of a federal officer. The court found that Integris was merely complying with federal regulations, which is insufficient to establish federal officer jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Integris was not "acting under" a federal officer because it was only complying with federal regulations and not fulfilling a basic government task. The court emphasized that compliance with federal law, even if highly detailed and supervised, does not equate to acting under a federal officer. The court also noted that Integris's use of tracking technology on its website was not required by the federal government and was not part of any federal directive. Therefore, the court concluded that removal under the federal officer removal statute was improper. View "Doe v. Integris Health" on Justia Law

In this case, two organizations and four individuals brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Phoenix and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights during a protest outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that the police used excessive force and violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dispersing the protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two classes and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted by three plaintiffs against certain officers. The court found that there was no "seizure" of the class members under the Fourth Amendment and evaluated the excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks-the-conscience" test. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding no evidence of retaliatory intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the class claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the use of airborne and auditory irritants did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment's "purpose to harm" standard applied. The court found no evidence of an improper purpose to harm by the officers.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants on the excessive-force claims asserted by the three plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances or did not violate clearly established law. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to disperse the crowd due to a clear and present danger.Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Police Chief Williams and the City of Phoenix, concluding that there was no evidence that Williams caused or ratified the use of excessive force or that the City was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by transgender women prisoners in Illinois, who allege that the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) has been deliberately indifferent to their gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to ensure timely evaluations and treatments, including hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery, and appropriate support for social transitioning.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois initially issued a preliminary injunction on February 7, 2022, which was intended to address the plaintiffs' claims. The court later issued further injunctions to supplement and modify the terms. However, more than a year and a half after the preliminary injunction was issued, the district court retroactively labeled it as a permanent injunction and issued a final judgment consistent with the February 7, 2022 decision. The defendants appealed several injunctions and a finding of civil contempt by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court's attempt to retroactively transform the preliminary injunction into a permanent one was not authorized. The appellate court held that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the preliminary injunction issued on February 7, 2022, expired 90 days later, on May 8, 2022. Consequently, the appellate court vacated all existing injunctions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the finding of contempt, as the district court had not yet imposed any sanctions, which are necessary to establish appellate jurisdiction. View "Monroe v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The City of Rittman filed an original action in prohibition against Judge Corey E. Spitler of the Wayne County Common Pleas Court. Rittman sought to prevent Judge Spitler from exercising jurisdiction over a class-action lawsuit in which Rittman was named as a defendant. The lawsuit, filed by Tara Boler and Trista Bise, alleged that Rittman had illegally collected a 0.5 percent income tax increase beyond its authorized period and sought refunds for the overcharged taxes from 2008 to 2022.In the Wayne County Common Pleas Court, Judge Spitler denied Rittman’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery, and he established a case-management schedule. Rittman then sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Ohio to stop Judge Spitler from proceeding with the case, arguing that the lawsuit was an impermissible attempt to bypass the statutory process for obtaining tax refunds.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that Judge Spitler had jurisdiction and statutory authority under R.C. 2723.01 to hear the case. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were substantively governed by R.C. 2723.01, which allows common pleas courts to enjoin the illegal levy or collection of taxes and entertain actions to recover them when collected. The court concluded that although the plaintiffs did not explicitly invoke R.C. 2723, their claims fit within its scope. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ of prohibition, allowing Judge Spitler to continue exercising jurisdiction over the underlying case. View "State ex rel. Rittman v. Spitler" on Justia Law

A group of car owners from ten states sued Nissan, alleging that certain models equipped with automatic electronic braking systems had a defect causing "phantom activations" at inappropriate times, such as at railroad crossings or in parking garages. The plaintiffs claimed this defect breached warranties, constituted fraud, violated consumer protection statutes, and unjustly enriched Nissan. They sought to certify ten statewide classes of owners or lessees of the affected models.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee certified the ten classes under Civil Rule 23(b)(3), finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated common questions of law or fact. Nissan appealed, arguing that the classes did not meet the requirements for certification, particularly due to differences in the software updates that had been applied to the braking systems over time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court had not conducted a rigorous analysis of the commonality requirement. The appellate court noted that the district court failed to consider the material differences in the software updates and how these differences might affect the existence of a common defect. Additionally, the district court did not analyze the elements of each state law claim to determine whether they could be resolved with common answers.The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's certification of the classes and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the elements of each claim and the impact of the software updates on the alleged defect. The court also held that the district court must perform a Daubert analysis to ensure the reliability of the plaintiffs' expert testimony, which was critical to establishing the commonality of the defect across the different models and software versions. View "IN RE: NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,INC. LITIGATION" on Justia Law

In April 2013, Michael Riste applied for a bail bond for his son, Michael Peterson, and signed an Indemnity Agreement and a Premium Agreement with Bad Boys Bail Bonds (Bail Agent). The agreements required Riste to pay a $10,000 premium in installments. Peterson signed identical documents after his release. The Bail Agent executed a $100,000 bail bond on behalf of The North River Insurance Company (Surety), ensuring Peterson's appearance at future court proceedings. Peterson failed to appear, leading to the forfeiture of the bail bond and a summary judgment against the Surety in October 2015.Two panels of the California Court of Appeal previously affirmed the denial of motions by the Surety and Bail Agent to set aside the summary judgment, vacate the forfeiture, and exonerate the bond. In October 2020, a class action cross-claim in Caldwell v. BBBB Bonding Corp. argued that the Bail Agent's premium financing agreements were subject to Civil Code section 1799.91 and were unenforceable without proper notice to cosigners. The trial court and the Court of Appeal agreed, enjoining the Bail Agent from enforcing such agreements without the requisite notice.In September 2022, the Surety and Bail Agent filed a third motion to set aside the summary judgment, citing Caldwell and arguing that the premium was part of the consideration for the bail bond, making the bond void. The trial court denied the motion, and the Surety and Bail Agent appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order. The court held that the bail bond was not void because the consideration for the bail bond was Peterson's release from custody, not the premium financing agreement. The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction over the bond and properly denied the motion to set aside the summary judgment, vacate the forfeiture, and exonerate the bond. View "People v. North River Insurance Co." on Justia Law

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

A class of over 500,000 federal student loan borrowers sued the U.S. Department of Education for failing to process their borrower defense (BD) applications. The Department and the plaintiffs reached a settlement, which included automatic debt forgiveness for certain borrowers and streamlined adjudication for others. Three for-profit universities (the Schools) listed in the settlement as having substantial misconduct intervened, claiming reputational harm.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement and denied the Schools' motion to intervene as of right but allowed them to object to the settlement. The Schools appealed, arguing that the settlement caused them reputational and financial harm and interfered with their procedural rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Schools had Article III standing due to alleged reputational harm but lacked prudential standing to challenge the settlement because they did not demonstrate formal legal prejudice. The court found that the dispute between the plaintiffs and the Department was not moot, as the Department's voluntary cessation of issuing pro forma denials did not render the case moot. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the Schools' motion to intervene as of right, concluding that the Schools did not have a significantly protectable interest and failed to show prejudice from the denial of intervention as of right.The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed the district court's denial of intervention as of right. View "Sweet v. Everglades College, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioners sought to disqualify a trial court judge based on alleged bias and prejudice. The key facts revolve around a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit initiated by the real parties in interest against the petitioners, their employer. During the litigation, the trial judge made comments suggesting the petitioners were attempting to evade liability through corporate restructuring. These comments were cited by the petitioners as evidence of bias.The Fresno County Superior Court judge struck the petitioners' statement of disqualification as untimely. The petitioners then sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) precluded the application of the timeliness requirement in section 170.3(c)(1) when a party alleges judicial bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the nonwaiver provision should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of waiver, including implied waiver due to untimeliness.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only to judicial self-disqualification and does not affect the timeliness requirement for party-initiated disqualification attempts under section 170.3(c)(1). The Court emphasized that the statutory text, structure, legislative history, and case law support this interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the petitioners' statement of disqualification was filed in a timely manner. View "North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, residents of Wisconsin, filed two class action complaints against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). They alleged that Experian failed to include a required statement in the "Summary of Rights" portion of their consumer reports, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(c)(2)(D). Plaintiffs sought actual, statutory, and punitive damages. Experian removed the cases to federal court, where Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing they lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution because they did not suffer a concrete harm. The federal court agreed and remanded the cases to state court.In state court, Experian moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Plaintiffs lacked standing under Wisconsin law and that their FCRA claim did not fall within the statute's "zone of interests." Plaintiffs contended California law should apply and that they had standing under it. The trial court, referencing the recent Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. decision, which required a concrete injury for standing in California state courts, granted Experian's motion. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing Limon was wrongly decided.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found Limon persuasive, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege a concrete or particularized injury. The court noted that under both California and federal law, an informational injury without adverse effects is insufficient to confer standing. Consequently, the judgment in favor of Experian was affirmed. View "Muha v. Experian Information Solutions" on Justia Law