Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Ryan Cox filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the defendants manipulated the price of a cryptocurrency called HEX by artificially lowering its ranking on CoinMarketCap.com. The defendants include two domestic companies, a foreign company, and three individual officers of the foreign company. Cox claimed that the manipulation caused HEX to trade at lower prices, benefiting the defendants financially.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Cox needed to show the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona before invoking the Commodity Exchange Act's nationwide service of process provision. The court found that none of the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes nationwide service of process independent of its venue requirement. The court concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the U.S. defendants, CoinMarketCap and Binance.US, because they had sufficient contacts with the United States. The court also found that Cox's claims against these defendants were colorable under the Commodity Exchange Act. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the U.S. defendants and remanded for further proceedings.However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the foreign defendants, Binance Capital and its officers, due to their lack of sufficient contacts with the United States. The court vacated the dismissal "with prejudice" and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint against the foreign defendants without prejudice. View "COX V. COINMARKETCAP OPCO, LLC" on Justia Law

The appellants in this case were arrested by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) during protests in August 2020. Upon arrest, their personal property, including cell phones, was seized. They were released without charges, but their property was not returned for months or even over a year, despite repeated requests. The appellants filed motions under D.C. Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to recover their property, which led to the return of some items after significant delays. They then sued the District of Columbia in federal court, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and common-law conversion, and sought damages and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaints. It held that the plaintiffs failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim because the initial seizure was reasonable and any challenge to continued retention was governed by the Fifth Amendment. The court also found that Rule 41(g) provided adequate process for the Fifth Amendment claim. Consequently, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the conversion claim and denied class certification as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued retention of personal property seized incident to a lawful arrest must be reasonable. The court found that the prolonged retention of the appellants' property without a legitimate investigatory or protective purpose could constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claims, vacated the dismissal of the D.C.-law claims and the denial of class certification, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Oyoma Asinor v. DC" on Justia Law

Four former Tesla employees, Sharonda Taylor, Shaka Green, Tatianna Smith, and Zenobia Milligan, requested personnel records from Tesla through their counsel, Bryan Schwarz Law (BSL), under the California Labor Code. These individuals are also part of a class action lawsuit, Vaughn v. Tesla, which alleges racial discrimination and harassment at Tesla's Fremont factory. During the Vaughn litigation, BSL sent Tesla privacy waivers and statutory personnel records requests on behalf of numerous employees, including the plaintiffs. Tesla did not respond to these requests, citing a stay in the Vaughn proceedings due to an appeal.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, denied Tesla's anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike the plaintiffs' PAGA complaint. The court found that Tesla failed to show that the plaintiffs' claims arose from protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were exercising their statutory rights to inspect and copy personnel records, independent of the Vaughn litigation.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that Tesla's refusal to provide the requested personnel records did not constitute protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court distinguished this case from Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Federal National Mortgage Assn., noting that the plaintiffs' claims did not involve any "written or oral statement or writing" by Tesla. The court also found that Tesla's conduct did not further any public issue or contribute to public debate, as required under the anti-SLAPP statute's catchall provision. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Tesla's anti-SLAPP motion. View "Taylor v. Tesla, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-investors brought a securities fraud class action against Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors, and its CEO, Peter Rawlinson. They alleged that Rawlinson made misrepresentations about Lucid's production capabilities, which affected the stock price of Churchill Capital Corp. IV (CCIV), a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) in which the plaintiffs were shareholders. These misrepresentations were made before Lucid was acquired by CCIV. Plaintiffs purchased CCIV stock based on these statements but did not own any Lucid stock, as Lucid was privately held at the time.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially held that the plaintiffs had statutory standing but dismissed the action for failure to allege a material misrepresentation. The court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint, but ultimately denied the amendments as futile and dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged materiality.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal on an alternative ground. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, following the Birnbaum Rule, which limits standing to purchasers or sellers of the stock in question. The court agreed with the Second Circuit's precedent in Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd., holding that purchasers of a security of an acquiring company (CCIV) do not have standing to sue the target company (Lucid) for alleged misstatements made prior to the merger. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. View "MAX ROYAL LLC V. ATIEVA, INC." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc., alleging that the company violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by charging grossly inflated prices for essential goods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs claimed that Amazon's price increases, which they defined as 15% or more on any consumer good or food item after a declared emergency, were unfair. They also alleged negligence and unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington reviewed the case and Amazon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that price gouging is not an unfair trade practice under the CPA. The District Court then certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court: whether the CPA's prohibition on "unfair" acts or practices includes price gouging as alleged, and if so, whether the court or jury determines what percentage increase in price is "unfair."The Washington Supreme Court held that price gouging, as alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint, may be considered an unfair act or practice under the CPA. The court applied the substantial injury test from federal law, which requires that the act causes substantial injury to consumers, is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. The court found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged substantial injury, lack of reasonable alternatives, and no countervailing benefits.However, the court declined to establish a rigid 15% price increase threshold as a predicate for a price gouging claim, stating that such economic policy decisions are best left to the legislature. Finally, the court determined that whether an act is unfair is generally a mixed question of law and fact for the jury to resolve, unless the facts are undisputed, in which case it is a question of law for the court. View "Greenberg v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

Jonathan Michel, a sophomore at Yale University during the Spring 2020 semester, filed a putative class action against Yale after the university transitioned to online-only classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Michel sought tuition refunds, claiming promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment under Connecticut law, arguing that Yale's refusal to refund tuition was inequitable since the online education provided was of lower value than the in-person education promised.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Yale's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Michel did not present evidence of financial detriment caused by the transition to online classes, a necessary element for both promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims. The court dismissed Michel's suit on January 31, 2023.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that Michel's quasi-contract claims were barred by a "Temporary Suspension Provision" in Yale's Undergraduate Regulations. This provision, which acted as a force majeure clause, allowed Yale to transition to online-only classes during the pandemic without issuing tuition refunds. The court concluded that Michel and Yale had a contractual relationship governed by this provision, which precluded Michel's quasi-contract claims. Therefore, Yale was entitled to summary judgment. View "Michel v. Yale University" on Justia Law

Anthony Cordero, a student at Montana State University (MSU) during the Spring 2020 semester, sued MSU for prorated reimbursement of his tuition and fees after the university transitioned to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cordero claimed that MSU breached an express contract to provide in-person education and services. He also asserted claims for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, due process violation, violation of the takings clause, and inverse condemnation.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County dismissed four of Cordero’s six claims, including the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court granted summary judgment in favor of MSU on the remaining claims, including the express contract claim, and denied Cordero’s motion to certify the case as a class action. The court found that Cordero did not identify a specific, bargained-for promise by MSU to provide in-person education and that he had no compensable property interest in the tuition and fees paid.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that there was an express contract between Cordero and MSU, but it did not include a specific promise to provide in-person education. The court found that MSU had the right to change its regulations and policies, including transitioning to online learning during emergencies. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, noting that an implied contract cannot exist when an express contract is present. The court concluded that MSU did not breach its contractual duties regarding tuition and fees, as it maintained campus facilities and services to the extent possible during the pandemic. View "Cordero v. Montana State University" on Justia Law

The case involves a consumer class action against Premier Nutrition Corporation, which marketed Joint Juice, a dietary supplement drink, as effective for relieving joint pain. Mary Beth Montera, representing a class of New York consumers, alleged that Premier's advertising was deceptive and violated New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350. These laws require proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and caused injury to the plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified the class and the case proceeded to trial. Montera presented evidence, including studies showing that Joint Juice's key ingredients, glucosamine and chondroitin, were ineffective for joint health. Premier countered with industry-funded studies supporting the product's efficacy. The jury found Premier's statements deceptive and awarded statutory damages based on the number of units sold in New York during the class period. Premier's post-trial motions to decertify the class and for judgment as a matter of law were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings on class certification, liability under GBL §§ 349 and 350, and the initial calculation of statutory damages. The court rejected Premier's arguments that its statements were not materially misleading and that Montera's injury was not cognizable under New York law. The court also upheld the jury's finding that the class members' injuries were caused by Premier's misrepresentations.However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's award of prejudgment interest, ruling that statutory damages under GBL §§ 349 and 350 are not compensatory and thus do not warrant prejudgment interest. The court also remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the statutory damages award in light of the factors identified in Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., which addresses the substantive due process limits on aggregate statutory damages. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "MONTERA V. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Carol Lewis and Douglas Sargent, both diabetics and Medicare beneficiaries, sought reimbursement for continuous glucose monitors and related supplies from 2015 to 2017. After the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) denied their claims, they pursued judicial review and sought to represent a class of individuals with similar claims. The district court denied their motion for class certification, noting that most putative class members had unexhausted or untimely claims. The court concluded that neither waiver of the exhaustion requirement nor equitable tolling of the limitations period was appropriate, reducing the putative class to seventeen individuals, which was too small to meet the numerosity requirement for class certification. After the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued new guidance in 2022, the district court granted partial judgment in favor of Lewis and Sargent, setting aside the denials of their claims and declaring that continuous glucose monitors are durable medical equipment.Lewis and Sargent appealed the denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They did not challenge the favorable merits judgment but focused solely on the class certification issue. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed their appeal for lack of constitutional standing. The court held that their desire to serve as class representatives did not create a cognizable Article III interest, as they did not allege any concrete individual injury resulting from the denial of class certification. The court emphasized that an abstract interest in representing a class is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Lewis v. Becerra" on Justia Law

In the first case, Kent County foreclosed on the homes of Matthew Schafer and Harry and Lilly Hucklebury for unpaid taxes. The properties were sold at auction in 2017, and the county retained the surplus proceeds beyond the owed taxes. Following the Michigan Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Co, which held that retaining surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales is an unconstitutional taking, the Schafer plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking those proceeds. The Kent Circuit Court denied the county's motion to dismiss, ruling that Rafaeli applied retroactively. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.In the second case, the state of Michigan, acting as the foreclosing governmental unit (FGU) for Shiawassee County, foreclosed on property owned by Lynette Hathon and Amy Jo Denkins in 2018. The state retained the surplus proceeds from the sale. The Hathon plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Claims, which certified the class and denied the state's motion for summary disposition. After Rafaeli, the plaintiffs moved for summary disposition, and the state moved to revoke class certification. The Court of Claims granted the state's motion to revoke class certification but later recertified an amended class. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims' decisions.The Michigan Supreme Court held that Rafaeli applies retroactively to claims not yet final as of July 17, 2020. The court also ruled that MCL 211.78t, which provides a procedure for processing claims under Rafaeli, applies retroactively, while the new two-year limitations period in MCL 211.78l applies prospectively. Claims that arose before December 22, 2020, but expired between that date and the court's decision must be allowed to proceed if filed within a reasonable time. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in Schafer and remanded the case for further proceedings. In Hathon, the court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming class recertification and remanded the case to the Court of Claims for reconsideration. View "Schafer v. Kent County" on Justia Law