Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A 1999 suit alleged that plaintiffs had been arrested on misdemeanor charges and were strip searched, without individualized suspicion, in violation of their federal and state constitutional rights. Nassau County conceded liability. The Second Circuit instructed the court to certify a class as to liability and to consider whether to certify a class as to damages. The district court certified both classes, granted summary judgment on liability, and held a bench trial on damages. In 2012, before the district court entered judgment, Nassau County moved to vacate the summary judgment and to dismiss the action based on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, that “every detainee who will be admitted to the general population [of a jail] may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed. The court granted the motion as to the federal claim, but determined that Florence did not warrant vacatur of the concession of liability with respect to the state claim, and awarded $11.5 million. While appeal was pending, Nassau County moved to stay enforcement pending appeal. The district court ruled that the obligation to deposit the funds with the court would be stayed for 180 days, or indefinitely, if Nassau County posted a bond. The Second Circuit stayed the requirement of deposit or bond. View "In re: Nassau Cnty Strip Search Cases" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of traditional blood reagents, used to test blood compatibility between donors and recipients, from Immucor and OrthoClinical (defendants). By 1999, the entire domestic supply of that product was under defendants’ control. In 2000, defendants’ executives attended a trade meeting at which plaintiffs assert the conspiracy began. Defendants soon began rapidly increasing prices. By 2009, many prices had risen more than 2000%. Following a Department of Justice probe, private suits were filed, transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and consolidated. Plaintiffs sought damages under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, for alleged horizontal price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. After preliminary approval of plaintiffs’ settlement with Immucor, the court certified plaintiffs’ class of “[a]ll individuals and entities who purchased traditional blood reagents in the United States directly from Defendants ... at any time from January 1, 2000 through the present.” Plaintiffs relied in part on expert testimony to produce their antitrust impact analyses and damages models, which Ortho challenged. The Supreme Court subsequently decided Comcast v. Behrend, which reversed Behrend v. Comcast, on which the district court relied in granting class certification. The Third Circuit vacated, reasoning that the court had no opportunity to consider the implications of Comcast; a court must resolve any Daubert challenges to expert testimony offered to demonstrate conformity with Rule 23 View "In re: Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action in California state court alleging that Dollar Tree Stores Inc. violated California state law by denying proper rest breaks to its employees. Dollar Tree removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court granted Plaintiff’s request to remand back to California state court because the CAFA $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied. After remand, a California superior court certified a broader class. Dollar Tree again filed a notice of removal, arguing that the expanded class actually certified placed at least $5 million in controversy. The district court concluded that the second removal was untimely because the order was based on the same complaint that had been the subject of the first removal. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the state court’s class certification order created a new occasion for removal, and the second removal was permissible; (2) the second removal was timely; and (3) because the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA were met, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Remanded. View "Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit in Washington state court against Nationstar Mortgage LLC, alleging several causes of action, including violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationstar filed a notice of removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand the proceeding to state court, arguing that its removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The district court granted the motion and awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs because it found that Nationstar did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) Nationstar’s removal under CAFA was timely, and therefore, the action properly belonged in federal court; and (2) the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees that was premised on improper removal must be reversed. View "Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC" on Justia Law

Alleging illegal tip pooling Conners filed a collective action against her former employer (a restaurant) under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The employer then implemented a new arbitration policy that requires all employment-related disputes between current employees and the employer to be resolved though individual arbitration. The policy purports to bind all current employees who did not opt out; each employee received an opt-out form. Citing public policy, the district court declared the policy unenforceable insofar as it could prevent current employees from joining this collective action. On interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated, holding that former employees like Conners lack standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge the arbitration agreement, which applied only to current employees. View "Conners v. Gusano's Chicago Style Pizzeria" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Dione Aguirre appealed an order denying class certification. Plaintiff sued defendants Amscan Holdings, Inc., and PA Acquisition, doing business as Party America (collectively, Party America) on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging Party America violated Civil Code the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Civil Code section 1747 et seq.) by routinely requesting and recording personal identification information, namely ZIP Codes, from customers using credit cards in its retail stores in California. The trial court found that plaintiff's proposed class of "[a]ll persons in California from whom Defendant requested and recorded a ZIP code in conjunction with a credit card purchase transaction from June 2, 2007 through October 13, 2010" was not an ascertainable class due to "plaintiff's inability to clearly identify, locate and notify class members through a reasonable expenditure of time and money [. . .] bars her from litigating this case as a class action." Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court erred in determining the class was not ascertainable based upon the finding that each individual class member was not specifically identifiable from Party America's records (and thus, notice to the class could not be directly provided to class members.) The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in determining the proposed class was not ascertainable and erred in its conclusion. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The law firm of Leeds, Morelli & Brown, representing 587 plaintiffs with discrimination claims against their employer, Nextel Communications, agreed with Nextel to set up a dispute resolution process whereby all of the plaintiffs’ claims against Nextel would be resolved without litigation. After most of the cases were settled through that process, a group of Nextel employees sued on behalf of the entire class of the firm’s Nextel clients against both the law firm and Nextel, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and breach of contract. The Second Circuit vacated dismissal of the case. On remand the district court certified a class under FRCP(b)(3), applying New York law to all of the class members’ claims, even though the class members came from 27 different states, and holding that common issues predominated over any individual issues, even though prior state court litigation indicated that for Colorado class members, individual waivers of the law firm’s conflict of interest could have vitiated defendants’ liability. The Second Circuit vacated: the district court erred in its choice‐of‐law analysis, and a proper analysis makes clear that the individual issues in this case will overwhelm common issues. View "Johnson v. Nextel Communications Inc." on Justia Law

The district court certified a nationwide class action, alleging that Nestlé and Waggin’ Train sold dog treats that injured the dogs. The parties reached a settlement, to which the district court has given tentative approval pending a fairness hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). That hearing is scheduled for June 23, 2015. The order tentatively approving the settlement enjoins all class members from prosecuting litigation about the dog treats in any other forum. One case affected by this injunction has been pending for two years in Missouri, and was certified as a statewide class action before the federal suit was certified as a national class action. Curts, the certified representative of the Missouri class, intervened to protest the injunction, citing 28 U.S.C. 2283, the AntiInjunction Act. The Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, noting that the district judge did not explain why he entered the injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(A) provides that every order issuing an injunction must “state the reasons why it issued.” An injunction that halts state litigation is permissible only if it satisfies section 2283 in addition to the traditional factors. The district judge was silent about everything that matters. View "Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co." on Justia Law

Eva Mies sought class action certification in order to sue her former employer, Sephora U.S.A., Inc. (Sephora), on behalf of employees who, like her, worked as "Specialists" in Sephora’s California retail stores. Mies claims Sephora misclassified Specialists as exempt from certain provisions of California labor law and, as a result, failed to pay overtime wages and failed to compensate them for missed meal periods. However, after crediting evidence that all Specialists did not engage in the same tasks to the same extent, the trial court denied class certification, concluding individualized issues, not common ones, would predominate the determination of liability. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court used proper legal criteria in assessing class certification and substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings. The Court also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. View "Mies v. Sephora U.S.A." on Justia Law

Time Warner Cable buys content from programmers, who require it to offer their channels as part of TW’s enhanced basic cable programming tier. TW paid the Lakers $3 billion for licensing rights to televise Lakers games for 20 years. Subscription rates rose by $5 a month as result. TW paid the Dodgers $8 billion for the licensing rights to televise games for 25 years, raising monthly rates by another $4. Subscribers filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that the arrangement violated the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200) because: acquisition of licensing rights to the games made TW both programmer and distributor; surveys showed that more than 60 percent of the population would not pay separately to watch the games; there were no valid reasons for bundling sports stations into the enhanced basic cable tier instead of offering them separately; TW expanded the reach of this scheme by selling its rights to the games to other providers, requiring those providers to include the channels as part of their enhanced basic tiers; and the teams knew the increased costs would be passed on to unwilling subscribers and were intended beneficiaries of these arrangements. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal: regulations implementing federal communications statutes expressly preempt the suit. View "Fischer v. Time Warner Cable Inc." on Justia Law