Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Appellants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, filed a motion to intervene in a class-action suit filed by Appellees, purchasers of surplus-lines insurance. Named as defendants were Arkansas surplus-lines-insurance brokers. According to Appellees, the defendants improperly placed contracts of insurance with persons who were not insurers approved by the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner. Appellants asserted that they had subscribed to multiple insurance policies issues to Appellees during the relevant time period and that they had significant interests in the suit because Appellees sought to void multiple insurance contracts to which Appellants subscribed as real parties in interest. Appellants also generally denied the allegation of the class-action complaint, including the allegation that the insurance contracts were voidable. The circuit court denied Appellants’ motion to intervene. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that Appellants were too amorphous to allow intervention; and (2) Appellants met the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), which must be demonstrated when a party seeks to intervene as a matter of right. View "Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London" on Justia Law

Thirteen inmates in custody throughout the Arizona prison system brought a class action suit against senior officials in the Arizona Department of Corrections alleging that they were subjected to systemic Eighth Amendment violations. The district court certified a class consisting of 33,000 prisoners incarcerated in the Arizona prison system, concluding that the putative class and subclass of inmates satisfied the requirements of class certification set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a)(2). The panel subsequently voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Ikuta filed a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc concurrently with this order, arguing that all members of this diverse class of prisoners did not have an Eighth Amendment claim, alone a common claim, and therefore the certification ran afoul of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Lewis v. Casey, and the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. View "Parsons v. Ryan" on Justia Law

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