Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

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

Two former employees of a financial services company, each a participant in the employer’s defined contribution retirement plan, sued the company on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated plan participants. They alleged that the company, as plan sponsor and fiduciary, breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by selecting and retaining certain BlackRock LifePath Index Funds as investment options, which they claimed were imprudent and caused monetary losses to their individual plan accounts. The plaintiffs sought recovery of losses under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss most of the claims, holding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a breach of fiduciary duty. It then certified a class of all plan participants and beneficiaries with investments in the BlackRock funds during the relevant period, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), finding that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims are inherently suitable for class treatment because they are brought on behalf of the plan and that allowing individual suits would risk inconsistent standards or impair interests of absent participants. The district court also found that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) was satisfied.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the class certification order. The Fourth Circuit held that, in the context of a defined contribution plan, claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) for monetary losses to individual accounts are inherently individualized and cannot be joined in a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1), which does not provide for notice or opt-out rights. The court also held that the claims failed to satisfy the commonality prerequisite because many class members did not experience the same injury. The district court’s order was thus reversed and vacated. View "Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc." on Justia Law

Several employees of United Airlines challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, alleging that United failed to provide reasonable religious and medical accommodations, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). United required all U.S. employees to be vaccinated by specific deadlines unless granted a religious or medical exemption. Employees seeking a religious accommodation needed to provide a personal statement of belief and a third-party attestation; those seeking a medical exemption had to submit supporting medical documentation. United initially planned to place all exempted employees on unpaid leave but later revised its policy for non-customer-facing employees, allowing them to work with masking and testing requirements, while customer-facing employees remained on indefinite unpaid leave.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas considered and partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The district court rejected a class seeking injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and a subclass of employees subject to masking and testing requirements, finding that the proposed classes lacked commonality and predominance due to the individualized nature of harm and the need for separate inquiries into the circumstances of each member. The court certified a modified subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of religious-accommodation seekers who were placed on unpaid leave but excluded those with medical accommodations from the subclass.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the class certification order under an abuse of discretion standard. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the broader classes and subclasses due to the individualized nature of the claims and in certifying the subclass of religious-accommodation seekers placed on unpaid leave. The court found that common questions predominated and that a class action was a superior method of adjudication for that subclass. View "Sambrano v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activities in Chicago through “Operation Midway Blitz,” prompting protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by deploying tear gas and other chemical agents without justification. The plaintiffs described instances of excessive force and sought injunctive relief to stop such practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order and later a broad preliminary injunction that applied districtwide, enjoining all federal law enforcement officers and agencies from using certain crowd control tactics. The court also certified a plaintiff class and required ongoing compliance reporting from DHS officials. The government appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing it was overbroad and infringed on separation of powers principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, citing its expansive scope and concerns over standing.Subsequently, as the enforcement operation ended and no further constitutional violations were reported, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, contrary to the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that extraordinary circumstances warranted vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit held that vacatur was appropriate because the case had become moot and to prevent the now-unreviewable injunction from producing adverse legal consequences in future litigation. The court vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal. View "Chicago Headline Club v. Noem" on Justia Law

Two individuals each owned companies that distributed snack foods for a larger food company. Years earlier, they had joined a class action lawsuit claiming that the company misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. That class action ended in a settlement, which included an optional provision: class members could agree to arbitrate future disputes in exchange for an additional payment. Both individuals opted into that provision and accepted the payment, thereby agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration.Several years later, the two individuals brought a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, again asserting claims related to alleged misclassification and seeking damages. The defendant company moved to stay the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing the prior agreement. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers under Section 1. The district court rejected that exemption argument, but did not order arbitration. Instead, it stayed and administratively closed the case without entering judgment, stating it was not compelling arbitration but was closing its doors to further proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s handling. The court held that, although the district court did not expressly deny the motion to compel arbitration, its actions amounted to a denial, and thus appellate jurisdiction existed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to determine whether the motion to compel arbitration should be granted or denied and to explain its reasoning. The court also clarified that, under the parties’ agreement, any compelled arbitration must proceed on an individual, not class, basis. View "Perruzzi v. The Campbell's Company" on Justia Law

After receiving a letter from a debt collector that she believed was misleading and threatening, an individual felt confused and feared potential legal action. She consulted an attorney and then initiated a putative class action lawsuit, seeking damages for herself and similarly situated Wisconsin consumers under both federal and state consumer protection statutes. The alleged violation centered on the misleading nature of the debt collection letter and its implications regarding possible litigation. After some discovery, she elected to pursue monetary damages for a putative class under the Wisconsin Consumer Act and sent the debt collector a statutory notice and demand.In response, the debt collector offered the individual actual damages and the maximum statutory penalty, and promised to cease sending similar collection letters, offering this as “an appropriate remedy.” The individual rejected the offer and moved for class certification. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court granted class certification, reasoning that the statutory provision required an appropriate remedy to be offered to the whole class, not just the named plaintiff. The court concluded that allowing a defendant to “pick off” the class representative would undermine the purpose of class actions under the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the public policy interests underlying class actions.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case. The court held that under Wis. Stat. § 426.110(4)(c), when a customer initiates a class action for damages, the statute requires that an appropriate remedy be given to the party bringing suit—not the putative class—within 30 days after notice. If the party plaintiff receives or is promised an appropriate remedy, a class action for damages cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gudex v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc." on Justia Law