Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Montano filed a putative class action against Wet Seal, alleging that it failed to offer all required meal and rest periods to its California non-exempt retail employees; failed to provide all regular and overtime pay when due or when employment terminated; and failed to provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements, in violation of the Labor and Business and Professions Codes, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7, and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. She included a representative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act. Montano propounded discovery requests and Wet Seal responded with objections but no substantive information. Montano moved to compel discovery responses. Before the hearing, Wet Seal moved to compel arbitration of Montano’s individual claims and to stay the action pending completion of arbitration, based on a “Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims." The trial court ultimately denied the motion for arbitration and granted the discovery motion. The court of appeal affirmed. View "Montano v. Wet Seal Retail, Inc." on Justia Law

Sarun, uninsured when he received emergency services from a hospital owned by Dignity Health, signed an agreement to pay the "full charges, unless other discounts apply.” The agreement explained uninsured patients might qualify for government aid or financial assistance from Dignity. After receiving an invoice for $23,487.90, which reflected a $7,871 “uninsured discount,” and without applying for any other discount or financial assistance, Sarun filed a putative class action, asserting unfair or deceptive business practices (Business and Professions Code 17200) and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, 1750). The complaint alleged that: Dignity failed to disclose uninsured patients would be required to pay several times more than others receiving the same services, the charges on the invoice were not readily discernable from the agreement, and the charges exceeded the reasonable value of the services. The trial court dismissed, finding that Sarun had not adequately alleged “actual injury.” The court of appeal reversed. Dignity’s argument Sarun was required to apply for financial assistance to allege injury in fact would be akin to requiring Sarun to mitigate damages as a precondition to suit. Mitigation might diminish recovery, butt does not diminish the party’s interest in proving entitlement to recovery. View "Sarun v. Dignity Health" on Justia Law

Bower was hired by Inter-Con in 2007 and executed an arbitration agreement, covering claims for compensation and wages. In 2008, Bower executed a second arbitration agreement that added clauses prohibiting claims on behalf of a class or in a representative capacity and covering claims for breaks and rest periods. After his 2011 termination, Bower filed a putative class action, claiming failure to: provide meal and rest periods, pay wages, provide accurate itemized wage statements, pay wages upon termination, with claims under the Unfair Competition Act and the Private Attorneys General Act. Instead of moving to compel arbitration, Inter-Con answered, asserting, as an affirmative defense, that Bower’s claims were subject to arbitration. Inter-Con responded to discovery, but objected based on the arbitration agreement, and agreed to provide responses only to Bower in his individual capacity. Inter-Con did respond to an interrogatory concerning the number of class members employed during the class period and propounded its own discovery. Bower moved for leave to file an amended complaint to allege a broader class and additional theories and to compel further discovery responses. Inter-Con then moved to compel arbitration. The court held that “Defendant waived the right to arbitrate by propounding and responding to class discovery.” The court of appeal affirmed. View "Bower v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Thousands of retired professional football players sued the National Football League and other defendants alleging primarily that the defendants failed to take reasonable actions to protect players from the risks associated with concussive and sub-concussive head injuries. The cases were consolidated and the district court “preliminarily approved” a proposed class-action settlement agreement and “conditionally certified for settlement purposes only” the settlement class and subclasses. Seven retired professional football players who object to the proposed settlement agreement and class certification, filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) petition for permission to appeal. The Third Circuit dismissed finding that the order was not an “order granting or denying class-action certification” under the plain text of the rule permitting interlocutory review. View "In re: NFL Players Concussion Injury Litigation" on Justia Law

In July 2012, plaintiff-respondent Ernesto Ruiz filed a putative class action complaint alleging defendant-appellant Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. failed to pay Ruiz and other employees overtime and other wages for all hours worked, provide required meal and rest breaks, provide accurate and complete wage statements, reimburse business expenses, and pay final wages in a timely manner. Moss Bros. appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of the employment-related and putative class action, representative, and Ruiz's individual claims. The trial court denied the petition on the ground Moss Bros. did not meet its burden of proving the parties had an agreement to arbitrate the controversy. No statement of decision was requested or issued, but the court implicitly found Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that an electronic signature on its proffered arbitration agreement was "the act of Ruiz." After its review, the Court of Appeal concluded Moss Bros. did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that Ruiz electronically signed the 2011 agreement. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order denying the petition. View "Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto" on Justia Law

EEOC sued CRST in its own name, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, alleging that CRST subjected Starke and 270 similarly situated female employees to a hostile work environment, in its Driver Training Program. For two years, EEOC failed to identify the women comprising the putative class; the court ordered EEOC to make all class members available for deposition or risk a discovery sanction. EEOC filed updated lists of allegedly aggrieved individuals, but failed to make all of them available for deposition before the deadline. The court barred EEOC from pursuing relief for any individual not made available for deposition before the deadline. EEOC then listed 155 individuals for whom it was still pursuing relief and 99 individuals, allegedly sexually harassed, but for whom EEOC was not pursuing relief based on the order. Following remand, the court dismissed, but for one claim, which settled for $50,000, and awarded CRST $92,842.21 in costs, $4,004,371.65 in attorneys' fees, and $463,071.25 in out-of-pocket expenses. The Eighth Circuit held that CRST is not entitled to attorneys' fees for claims dismissed based on EEOC's failure to satisfy pre-suit obligations and a purported pattern-or-practice claim. On remand, the court must individually assess each claim for which it granted summary judgment on the merits and explain why it deems each to be frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants-respondents Stella Stephens, Timothy Young, and Melissa Young purchased homes from plaintiff and appellant Lennar Homes of California, Inc. The agreements between Lennar and Stephens and between Lennar and the Youngs contained identical indemnity clauses. Lennar sought to enforce those indemnity clauses, seeking to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending a class action lawsuit, brought initially by Stephens, and later joined by Timothy Young (but not Melissa) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Lennar appealed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP motion) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). Lennar argued on appeal that the trial court’s ruling that the indemnity clause at issue was unenforceable under California law, precluding Lennar from demonstrating a probability of success on the merits. Lennar also disagreed with the trial court’s finding that Lennar’s claim against Melissa Young arose from activity protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Lennar Homes of Cal. v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Nijjar hired Judge as a resident property manager. Nijjar terminated her employment. Judge filed claims for unpaid compensation, meal and rest period premiums, waiting time penalties, and wrongful termination. Under the Private Attorney General Act, Judge alleged similar claims on behalf of other employees. Judge also filed a class action, alleging similar claims on behalf of herself and class members. The trial court determined that the actions were related cases and designated the individual/PAGA action as the lead case, but denied Judge’s subsequent application to consolidate the cases. Based on an arbitration agreement that Judge had signed as an employee, the trial court granted a petition to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the individual and PAGA claims. The court concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act governed the agreement and that Judge’s employment-related claims and individual PAGA claims were covered. The arbitrator issued a clause construction award, finding that the agreement permitted arbitration of class and representative claims. The trial court granted the defendants’ petition to vacate the n award. The court of appeal dismissed, stating that because the arbitrator has not ruled on any substantive issues, the order did not vacate a final arbitration award and is not appealable. View "Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc." on Justia Law

A defendant seeking to remove a case from state to federal court must file a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,” 28 U. S. C. 1446(a). Owens filed a putative class action in Kansas state court, seeking compensation for underpaid oil and gas lease royalties. Dart removed the case, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which gives federal courts jurisdiction over class actions if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, 28 U. S. C. 1332(d)(2). Dart’s notice of removal alleged underpayments of more than $8.2 million. Following a motion to remand, Dart submitted a detailed declaration supporting an amount in controversy higher than $11 million. The district court granted Owens’ remand motion, reading Tenth Circuit precedent to require proof of the amount in controversy in the notice itself. The Tenth Circuit denied review. The Supreme Court vacated. Notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold; it need not contain evidentiary submissions. By borrowing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s “short and plain statement” standard, Congress intended that courts apply the same liberal rules to removal allegations as to other pleadings. The amount-in-controversy allegation of a plaintiff is accepted if made in good faith. No anti-removal presumption attends cases invoking CAFA. View "Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens" on Justia Law

Judon was injured while riding in a commercial passenger vehicle that was insured by Travelers. Judon sought first-party medical benefits of $7,636.40. Travelers paid $5,000, up to the policy’s first-party medical benefits limit. Judon filed a class-action complaint in state court, alleging that Pennsylvania law required that the policy offer up to $25,000 in first-party medical benefits. Judon alleged that “there are hundreds of members of the class” who were wrongfully denied payment of first-party benefits. Travelers removed to federal court, under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), 1453, arguing that the parties were minimally diverse; the proposed class consisted of at least 100 putative members; and the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000. The district court remanded, finding that CAFA’s numerosity and amount-in- controversy requirements were disputed and placing the burden of proof on Travelers to establish jurisdiction. The Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. Judon’s complaint unambiguously pleaded that the numerosity requirement was satisfied, so the court should have placed the burden of proof on Judon to show, to a legal certainty, that the numerosity requirement was not satisfied. The court correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to the amount-in-controversy requirement. View "Judon v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am." on Justia Law