Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A former employee brought a class action lawsuit against her former employer, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and other employment-related statutes. After the complaint was filed, the employer entered into approximately 954 individual settlement agreements with other employees, providing cash payments in exchange for releases of claims. The plaintiff did not sign such an agreement but moved for class certification and later sought to invalidate the individual settlements on the grounds of fraud and coercion, arguing the employer misrepresented the litigation’s status and the scope of the settlements.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County partially granted the motion, ruling that the individual settlement agreements were voidable due to fraud or duress and ordered that a curative notice be sent to affected employees. The court’s notice advised that employees could rescind their agreements and join the class action, but did not require immediate repayment of settlement funds to the employer. The employer objected, arguing the notice should have informed employees that they might be required to return the settlement money if they rescinded and the employer ultimately prevailed in the litigation. The trial court declined to include this language, instead following certain federal cases that allowed offsetting the settlement amount against any recovery but did not require repayment before judgment.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case on a writ. The court held that under California Civil Code sections 1689, 1691, and 1693, employees who rescind their settlement agreements may be required to repay the consideration they received, but repayment can be delayed until final judgment unless the employer shows substantial prejudice from delay. The court also found the trial court retains equitable authority to adjust repayment at judgment under section 1692. The appellate court directed the trial court to reconsider the curative notice in accordance with these principles. Each side was ordered to bear their own costs on appeal. View "The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Several home builder companies challenged fees they were required to pay to a city when connecting to municipal water and sewer systems. These so-called Capital Facilities Fees were imposed as a condition of development between 2016 and 2018. The builders paid these fees directly to the city and allege that the charges were not authorized by state law. They sought to recover the payments and also requested to represent a class of all entities who, like them, paid the fees during the relevant period.In Superior Court, Wake County, the plaintiffs moved for class certification, arguing that their claims and those of other payors shared common legal and factual questions. The trial court certified a class including all entities who paid the fees between January 2016 and June 2018, finding that the class was numerous, the claims predominated over individual differences, and class treatment was the superior method for resolving the dispute. The trial court also granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the merits, but the city appealed only the class certification order directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court of North Carolina considered only whether class certification was proper. It held that, under the applicable state statute, the right to a refund depends on who made payment to the city, not on who ultimately bore the cost. The possibility that some builders incorporated the fees into home prices did not defeat class certification, as the statute entitles the actual payor to relief. The court concluded that the trial court correctly applied the legal criteria for class certification and did not abuse its discretion. The order certifying the class was therefore affirmed. View "Wardson Constr., Inc. v. City of Raleigh" on Justia Law

A group of Carteret County property owners challenged the county’s policy of charging waste disposal fees. The county does not provide direct trash or recycling collection services but instead offers access to waste disposal sites and a landfill. The county funded these facilities by charging fees to property owners, including both those who potentially used the county sites and those who hired private waste collection services. The plaintiffs argued that the county unlawfully charged these fees to property owners who never used the county sites or who had private waste collection, and also that the total fees collected exceeded the cost of operating the facilities, in violation of state law.Following extensive discovery, the Superior Court in Carteret County considered plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court rejected one proposed class, finding that determining whether each property owner actually used a county site would require individualized inquiries that would predominate over common issues. However, the court certified three other classes: those allegedly charged fees despite using private waste collection services, and those asserting that the county collected fees beyond its actual operating costs. The county appealed the class certification order directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The plaintiffs did not cross-appeal the denial of the first class.The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Superior Court’s class certification order. The Court held that it is feasible to ascertain class members who used private waste collection services by relying on the customer lists from the limited number of providers in the county. The Court also determined that issues of predominance and superiority did not bar class certification and that any future developments could be addressed through modification or decertification of the class. Thus, the trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Armistead v. County of Carteret" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case were former hourly employees of Amazon who worked in the company’s Illinois distribution warehouses. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon required all hourly, nonexempt employees to undergo mandatory medical screenings before clocking in for their shifts. These screenings included temperature checks and health questions, and typically took 10 to 15 minutes, sometimes causing employees to clock in after their scheduled start time. Plaintiffs alleged that Amazon violated wage laws by not compensating employees for the time spent in these screenings, arguing the screenings were necessary to their work and primarily benefited Amazon by enabling continued operations during the pandemic.The plaintiffs initially filed a class-action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, asserting claims under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Amazon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which dismissed the complaint. The district court held that the FLSA claims were barred by the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), which excludes certain preshift activities from compensable time, and summarily concluded the state law claims failed for the same reason. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which certified to the Supreme Court of Illinois the question of whether Illinois’s Minimum Wage Law incorporates the PPA’s exclusion for preliminary and postliminary activities.The Supreme Court of Illinois held that section 4a of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law does not incorporate the PPA’s exclusion for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute and relevant state regulations do not contain such an exclusion and that the Illinois Department of Labor explicitly defines compensable hours to include all time an employee is required to be on the premises. The court thus answered the certified question in the negative. View "Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the Massachusetts Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He alleged that the Act’s provisions regarding payment of interest on unclaimed property resulted in an uncompensated taking of his private property for public use. The plaintiff’s complaint included evidence that the state held property in his name, but did not explain his connection to the listed address or further describe the property. He had not filed a claim to recover the property through the statutory process.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief since he did not demonstrate any future harm, and that the Commonwealth had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Takings Clause, reasoning in part that the statute provides a mechanism for reclaiming the property in full and that any taking resulted from the plaintiff’s own neglect. The district court did not address the ripeness argument raised by the Treasurer.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that if the plaintiff’s challenge was to the statutory interest rate, his claim was not ripe, as he had not yet made a claim for the property or been denied interest. Alternatively, if the claim was that a taking had already occurred when the state took possession, he lacked standing to seek prospective relief because any injury was in the past and not ongoing. The court thus affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction. View "Narrigan v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

Two individuals, each of whom held credit card debt with Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy—one under Chapter 13 and the other under Chapter 7—in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. After receiving notice of the bankruptcy filings, Goldman Sachs allegedly continued collection efforts on the debts, including repeated communications warning of adverse credit reporting. The debtors claimed these actions violated the automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Code. They commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), seeking damages and injunctive relief, and proposed to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.Goldman Sachs responded by moving to compel arbitration of the debtors’ claims based on an arbitration clause in the credit card agreements, and sought to stay the adversary proceeding. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Goldman Sachs’ motion, finding that the claim for a willful violation of the automatic stay was a core bankruptcy matter, and that enforcing arbitration would irreconcilably conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia affirmed, holding that arbitration would undermine the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce the automatic stay and disrupt the centralized resolution of bankruptcy-related disputes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit held that compelling arbitration of a statutory and constitutionally core claim for violation of the automatic stay would conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, including centralization of claims, uniform enforcement, the debtor’s “fresh start,” and the specialized expertise of bankruptcy courts. The court concluded that under these circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown" on Justia Law

Abdulkadir Abdisalam worked as a courier delivering medical supplies for a company that classified its couriers as independent contractors. To work for the company, Abdisalam was required to form his own corporation, Abdul Courier, LLC, which then entered into a contract with the company. This contract included an arbitration provision requiring disputes to be arbitrated. Abdisalam signed the contract as the owner of his corporation, not in his individual capacity. After several years of providing courier services, Abdisalam alleged that the company misclassified him and others as independent contractors and failed to pay them proper wages, in violation of Massachusetts law. He filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of couriers seeking remedies under Massachusetts statutes.The company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in its contract with Abdul Courier, LLC. The district court denied the motion, finding that Abdisalam, having signed only as the owner of the LLC and not in his personal capacity, was not bound by the contract’s arbitration clause. The court also rejected the company’s arguments that Abdisalam should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of direct benefits estoppel, intertwined claims estoppel, or as a successor in interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The First Circuit held that, under Massachusetts law, it was for the court—not an arbitrator—to decide whether Abdisalam was bound by the arbitration agreement. The court further held that Abdisalam, as a nonsignatory to the agreement in his personal capacity, was not bound by its arbitration provision, and none of the equitable estoppel or successor theories advanced by the defendant provided a basis to compel arbitration. View "Abdisalam v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Retired employees of two companies, who participated in their employers’ defined benefit pension plans, brought class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These plaintiffs, all married, claimed that their plans calculated joint and survivor annuity benefits using mortality tables based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s. Because life expectancies have increased since then, the plaintiffs asserted that using such outdated mortality assumptions improperly reduced their benefits, resulting in joint and survivor annuities that were not the actuarial equivalent of the single life annuities to which they would otherwise be entitled, as required by ERISA.Each group of plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court—one in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Kellogg plans and one in the Western District of Tennessee against the FedEx plan—asserting that the use of obsolete actuarial assumptions violated 29 U.S.C. § 1055(d) and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The district courts in both cases dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim, holding that ERISA does not require use of any particular mortality table or actuarial assumption in calculating benefits for married participants, and thus the allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that, under ERISA’s statutory requirement that joint and survivor annuities be “actuarially equivalent” to single life annuities, plans must use actuarial assumptions, including mortality data, that reasonably reflect the life expectancies of current participants. The court concluded that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the use of outdated mortality tables was unreasonable and could violate ERISA. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts’ judgments and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Reichert v. Kellogg Co." on Justia Law

An assisted living residence operated by the defendant charged new residents a one-time “community fee” upon admission. The agreement stated that this fee was intended to cover upfront staff administrative costs, the resident’s initial service coordination plan, move-in assistance, and to establish a reserve for building improvements. The plaintiff, acting as executor of a former resident’s estate and representing a class, alleged that this community fee violated the Massachusetts security deposit statute, which limits the types of upfront fees a landlord may charge tenants. The complaint further claimed that charging the fee was an unfair and deceptive practice under state consumer protection law.The Superior Court initially dismissed the case, finding that the security deposit statute did not apply to assisted living residences, which are governed by their own regulatory scheme. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts previously held in a related decision that the statute does apply to such residences when acting as landlords, but does not prohibit upfront fees for services unique to assisted living facilities. The court remanded the case for further factual development to determine whether the community fee corresponded to such services. After discovery and class certification, both parties moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court judge ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the community fees were not used solely for allowable services because they were deposited into a general account used for various expenses, including non-allowable capital improvements.On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed. The court held that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because uncontradicted evidence showed that the community fees corresponded to costs for assisted living-specific intake services that exceeded the amount of the fees collected. The court emphasized that the statute does not require the fees to be segregated or tracked dollar-for-dollar, and ordered judgment in favor of the defendant. View "Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law