Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A dental practice owned by Timothy A. Ungarean, DMD, purchased a commercial property insurance policy from CNA and Valley Forge Insurance Company. The policy was intended to cover business-related losses. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Pennsylvania's Governor ordered non-essential businesses to close, which led to significant financial losses for Ungarean's practice. Ungarean filed a claim under the policy, which was denied by CNA on the grounds that there was no physical damage to the property.Ungarean then filed a class action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, seeking a declaration that the policy covered his pandemic-related business losses. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ungarean, interpreting the policy's language to include loss of use of the property as a form of "direct physical loss." The court also found that none of the policy's exclusions applied to bar coverage.The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the policy language was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of the insured. The court held that the loss of use of the property due to the government shutdown constituted a "direct physical loss."The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the policy's language was unambiguous and required a physical alteration to the property for coverage to apply. The court found that the economic losses suffered by Ungarean due to the government shutdown did not meet this requirement. Consequently, the court ruled that Ungarean was not entitled to coverage under the policy and remanded the case to the Superior Court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of CNA. View "Ungarean v. CNA" on Justia Law

A former employee, Campbell, filed a putative class action lawsuit against her employer, Sunshine Behavioral Health, LLC, alleging wage and hour violations. Campbell claimed that employees were not paid proper overtime, were required to work through meal and rest breaks without compensation, were not paid minimum wage, and were not paid in a timely manner. Sunshine initially proceeded with litigation and agreed to participate in mediation. However, Sunshine later claimed to have discovered an arbitration agreement signed by Campbell, which included a class action waiver.The Superior Court of Orange County found that Sunshine had waived its right to compel arbitration. Despite allegedly discovering the arbitration agreement in November 2022, Sunshine continued to engage in mediation discussions and did not inform Campbell or the court of its intent to compel arbitration until March 2023. Sunshine's delay and conduct were deemed inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, leading the court to conclude that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration. The court noted that Sunshine's actions, including agreeing to mediation on a class-wide basis and delaying the motion to compel arbitration, were inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The court emphasized that Sunshine's conduct demonstrated an intentional abandonment of the right to arbitrate, thus affirming the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Campbell v. Sunshine Behavioral Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Marla Knudsen and William Dutra, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against MetLife Group, Inc. They alleged that MetLife, as the administrator and fiduciary of the MetLife Options & Choices Plan, misappropriated $65 million in drug rebates from 2016 to 2021. Plaintiffs claimed this misappropriation led to higher out-of-pocket costs for Plan participants, including increased insurance premiums.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and individualized injury. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the general pool of Plan assets and had not shown that they did not receive their promised benefits. The court found the plaintiffs' claims that they paid excessive out-of-pocket costs to be speculative and lacking factual support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact, as their allegations of increased out-of-pocket costs were speculative and not supported by concrete facts. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide specific allegations showing how the misappropriated drug rebates directly caused their increased costs. The court emphasized that financial harm must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their ERISA claims. View "Knudsen v. MetLife Group Inc" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, William and Ellen Solem, own property in Flathead County’s “Neighborhood 800.” In 2008, the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) conducted a mass appraisal of lakefront properties in this neighborhood, significantly increasing the valuation of the Solems' property from $229,500 in 2002 to $1,233,050 in 2008. The Solems challenged the appraisal, arguing that DOR’s methodology was improper and unlawful. They sought approximately $450 in alleged overpaid taxes and filed a class action on behalf of other property owners in the neighborhood.The Eleventh Judicial District Court certified the case as a class action and held a bench trial on liability issues. The court found in favor of the Solems, ruling that DOR’s appraisal methodology was unlawful and unconstitutional. The court criticized DOR for excluding 17 outlier sales from its model and for using only three variables in its appraisal process. The court awarded damages, costs, and fees to the plaintiffs. The Solems also cross-appealed the court’s denial of their motion to amend the class definition.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court erred by substituting its judgment for that of DOR. The Supreme Court found that DOR’s mass appraisal methodology was consistent with accepted practices and that the Solems failed to meet the substantial burden of disproving the accuracy of DOR’s appraisal. The court also noted that the District Court improperly relied on the R squared value as the sole metric for accuracy. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s ruling and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court did not address the constitutionality of the payment-under-protest requirement, as it was unnecessary given the resolution of the primary issue. View "Solem v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

In 2007, Dennis Collins, Suzanne Collins, David Butler, and Lucia Bott purchased long-term care insurance policies from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). They also bought an Inflation Protection Rider, which promised automatic annual benefit increases without corresponding premium hikes, though MetLife reserved the right to adjust premiums on a class basis. In 2015, 2018, and 2019, MetLife informed the plaintiffs of significant premium increases. The plaintiffs filed a class action in 2022, alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Illinois and Missouri law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, ruling that the filed rate doctrine under Missouri and Illinois law barred the plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs bringing claims under Missouri law failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the filed rate doctrine did not apply, they were not required to exhaust administrative remedies, and their complaint adequately alleged a breach of the implied covenant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that MetLife's statements about premium expectations were not materially false and that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege intentional fraud or fraudulent concealment. The court also concluded that the statutory claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act were barred by regulatory exemptions. Lastly, the court determined that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not breached, as MetLife's actions were expressly permitted by the policy terms. View "Collins v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Marco Fernandez applied to rent an apartment, and RentGrow, Inc. provided a tenant screening report to the property owner. The report inaccurately indicated that Fernandez had a "possible match" with a name on the OFAC list, which includes individuals involved in serious crimes. However, the property manager did not understand or consider this information when deciding on Fernandez's application. Fernandez sued RentGrow, alleging that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by not ensuring the accuracy of the OFAC information.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified a class of individuals who had similar misleading OFAC information in their reports. The court rejected RentGrow's argument that Fernandez and the class lacked standing because they did not demonstrate a concrete injury. The district court held that the dissemination of the misleading report itself was sufficient to establish a concrete injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's conclusion. The appellate court held that reputational harm can be a concrete injury, but only if the misleading information was read and understood by a third party. In this case, there was no evidence that anyone at the property management company read or understood the OFAC information in Fernandez's report. Therefore, Fernandez failed to demonstrate a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Fernandez v. RentGrow, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Gridley operates an electric utility and approved reduced electric rates for residential users in September 2020. Plaintiffs, residential ratepayers, challenged these rates, alleging they resulted in charges exceeding the reasonable cost of providing electric service, thus constituting a tax without voter approval in violation of article XIII C of the California Constitution. They also claimed the rates violated the state and federal takings clauses under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate and class action complaint, alleging the City set rates higher than necessary and transferred excess revenues to its general fund.The Superior Court of Butte County denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the rates resulted in excessive charges and whether plaintiffs had a property interest in continued electric service. The court rejected the City’s argument that article XIII C was inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase a tax when it approved reduced rates. The court also found that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine could apply to plaintiffs' takings claim.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the City was entitled to relief. The court found article XIII C inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase any tax by reducing its electric rates. The court also found the unconstitutional conditions doctrine inapplicable, as it applies only in the land-use permitting context, not to user fees like the electric rates in question. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to set aside its order denying the City’s motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion. The City’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the stay of proceedings in the trial court was vacated. View "City of Gridley v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Dan Hamilton, an employee at an Amazon warehouse in Aurora, Colorado, received both holiday pay and holiday incentive pay. Holiday pay was his regular hourly rate for company holidays, regardless of whether he worked. Holiday incentive pay was one and one-half times his regular rate for hours worked on holidays. Hamilton filed a class action complaint alleging Amazon violated the Colorado Wage Act by not including holiday incentive pay in the calculation of his overtime pay.The case was initially filed in Arapahoe County District Court but was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Amazon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that holiday incentive pay could be excluded from the regular rate of pay under both Colorado law and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal district court agreed with Amazon, ruling that Colorado law did not require the inclusion of holiday incentive pay in the regular rate of pay calculation, and dismissed Hamilton's complaint. Hamilton appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which then certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the certified question and concluded that holiday incentive pay must be included in the calculation of the regular rate of pay under Colorado law. The court found that the plain language of the relevant regulations, specifically 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1103-1:1.8 and 1.8.1, mandated the inclusion of all compensation for hours worked, including holiday incentive pay. The court rejected Amazon's arguments that holiday incentive pay could be excluded and that Colorado law should be interpreted in line with the FLSA. The court held that holiday incentive pay is a form of shift differential and must be included in the regular rate of pay calculation. View "Hamilton v. Amazon.com Services" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, challenging the constitutionality of a $63 late fee imposed for failing to pay a parking meter fine within 21 days. The plaintiffs argue that this late fee, which matches the amount of the original fine, violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The plaintiffs incurred at least one parking meter citation and late fee, and they assert that the late fee is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to individuals who cannot afford to pay it within the specified time frame.The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that the $63 parking fine was not "grossly disproportionate" to the offense of overstaying a parking meter. The court also rejected the challenge to the $63 late fee without providing a detailed rationale. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit previously upheld the initial fine but remanded the case to determine whether the late fee violated the Excessive Fines Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for the City regarding the late fee. The Ninth Circuit found that a genuine factual dispute exists about the City's basis for setting the late fee at 100 percent of the parking fine. The court noted that the City provided no evidence on how it determined the $63 late fee amount, making it impossible to conclude as a matter of law that the fee is not "grossly disproportional" to the harm caused by the untimely payment. The court declined to incorporate means-testing into the Excessive Fines Clause analysis, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the fee should consider individuals' ability to pay. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "PIMENTEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Adam and Miranda Steines, along with Andrew Ormesher, filed a class action lawsuit against Westgate, a resort company, alleging violations of the Military Lending Act (MLA). The Steines, who purchased a timeshare in Orlando and financed it through a loan from Westgate, claimed that Westgate's loan documents did not comply with the MLA's requirements, including the prohibition of mandatory arbitration clauses. The Steines sought rescission of their timeshare, injunctive relief, damages, and restitution.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held an evidentiary hearing and denied Westgate's motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. The court found that the MLA applied to the timeshare loan and that the MLA's prohibition on mandatory arbitration clauses overrode the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Westgate appealed the decision, arguing that the district court should not have addressed the arbitrability issue and that the MLA did not override the FAA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the question of whether the MLA overrides the FAA is a matter for the court to decide, not the arbitrator. The court found that the MLA explicitly prohibits mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer credit contracts involving servicemembers, thereby overriding the FAA. Additionally, the court agreed with the district court's finding that the timeshare loan did not qualify as a "residential mortgage" under the MLA, as the timeshare units were more akin to hotel rooms than residential dwellings.As a result, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the MLA's provisions rendered the FAA inapplicable in this case. View "Steines v. Westgate Palace, L.L.C." on Justia Law