Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Several individuals who had received grants of parole under programs established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela challenged the government’s decision to terminate those grants. The parole programs, created during the Biden Administration, allowed eligible individuals from these countries to enter the United States temporarily for up to two years, based on urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. When President Trump took office in January 2025, he issued executive orders directing DHS to end categorical parole programs, including the CHNV programs. DHS subsequently published a notice terminating the programs and revoking all existing grants of parole within thirty days, rather than allowing them to expire naturally.The plaintiffs, affected by the early termination, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court certified a class of affected individuals and granted a preliminary stay, preventing DHS from revoking their parole grants before the original expiration dates. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the categorical termination was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in part because the agency’s rationale rested on a legal error and failed to adequately consider reliance and humanitarian interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The First Circuit held that the relevant statute requires DHS to grant parole only on a case-by-case basis, but does not impose the same limitation on the termination of parole. The court also found that the agency’s explanation for terminating the parole programs was not so deficient as to be arbitrary and capricious under the APA. Concluding that the plaintiffs had not made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s stay and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Noem" on Justia Law

Two former customers of an insurance company filed suit after their vehicles were declared total losses and the insurer paid out claims based on the vehicles’ “actual cash value” (ACV). The insurance policy defined ACV as the “market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs.” The insurer calculated market value using a system that included a “projected sold adjustment” (PSA), which reduced the list prices of comparable vehicles to reflect typical consumer negotiation. The plaintiffs alleged that the PSA always resulted in an artificially low valuation, breaching the policy’s requirement to pay true market value.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that the plaintiffs met the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). However, the court determined that individual questions about how each vehicle’s ACV was calculated predominated over common questions, as required by Rule 23(b)(3), and therefore denied class certification. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of class certification for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the PSA was not facially unlawful and that determining whether each class member was harmed would require individualized inquiries into each person’s vehicle valuation. Because liability and injury could not be established through common evidence, individual issues would predominate over common ones. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s order denying class certification, holding that class certification was inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) due to the predominance of individualized questions. View "AMBROSIO V. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

A property management company operating several apartment buildings in Missoula County contracted with a waste management provider for “three-yard” dumpster service. After the expiration of their initial service agreement, the provider continued to supply waste removal services on an invoice-by-invoice basis. The property management company later discovered that many of the dumpsters labeled as “three-yard” actually had a capacity of less than three cubic yards, with one model measuring approximately 2.52 cubic yards. The waste management provider rotated these containers among customers and did not maintain records of which customers received which models. The property management company alleged that it was charged overage fees for exceeding the stated capacity of these undersized containers.The property management company filed suit in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, asserting claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, and sought to represent a class of similarly situated customers. The District Court bifurcated discovery and, after briefing and oral argument, certified two classes: one for breach of contract and one for negligent misrepresentation, both defined as customers who paid for “three-yard” service but received dumpsters of 2.6 cubic yards or less. The District Court found that common questions predominated over individual issues and that class litigation was superior to individual actions.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in finding predominance of common questions and whether it erred by not considering the ascertainability of class members. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the classes, as common questions regarding the provider’s contractual and legal obligations predominated, and individualized damages did not preclude certification. The Court also held that ascertainability is not a mandatory requirement under Montana’s class action rule. The District Court’s order granting class certification was affirmed. View "Allied Waste v. LH Residential" on Justia Law

Peterson’s Oil Service, Inc. supplied heating fuel to customers in Massachusetts between 2012 and 2019. The fuel contained higher-than-standard levels of biodiesel, averaging 35% between 2015 and 2018, exceeding the 5% industry standard for ordinary heating oil. Customers alleged that this biodiesel-blended fuel was incompatible with conventional heating systems, caused repeated heat loss, and resulted in permanent damage to their equipment. They brought a class action in Massachusetts state court against Peterson’s and its officers, asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence, including allegations that Peterson’s continued supplying the fuel despite customer complaints and only later disclosed the high biodiesel content.United States Fire Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company had issued Peterson’s a series of commercial general liability and umbrella policies. The insurers initially defended Peterson’s in the class action under a reservation of rights, then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that they owed no duty to defend or indemnify Peterson’s. The insurers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims did not arise from a covered “occurrence” and that policy provisions limiting or excluding coverage for failure to supply applied. The district court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute as to whether Peterson’s actions were accidental and holding that the failure-to-supply provisions were ambiguous and did not apply.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The court held that the underlying complaint alleged a potentially covered “occurrence” because it was possible Peterson’s did not intend or expect the property damage alleged. The court also held that the failure-to-supply provisions were ambiguous and, under Massachusetts law, must be construed in favor of coverage. The district court’s summary judgment rulings were affirmed. View "United States Fire Insurance Company v. Peterson's Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Two former employees of a fire alarm and sprinkler company provided fire alarm testing and inspection services on public works projects in New York. They alleged that their employer failed to pay them the prevailing wages required by New York Labor Law § 220, which mandates that workers on public works projects receive at least the prevailing rate of wages. The contracts between the employer and various public entities included clauses that either disclaimed the applicability of prevailing wage laws, were silent on the issue, or referenced prevailing wage rates. Many contracts also contained a provision shortening the statute of limitations for any action against the company to one year.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted partial summary judgment in favor of the employer on all prevailing wage-related claims. The court found that: (1) the contracts did not expressly promise to pay prevailing wages; (2) the one-year contractual limitations period barred the claims; and (3) fire alarm testing and inspection work was not covered by § 220’s prevailing wage requirement. The court also dismissed related quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims and later approved a class action settlement on other claims, with the prevailing wage claims reserved for appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, based on a 2009 New York State Department of Labor opinion letter and relevant precedent, fire alarm testing and inspection work is covered by § 220, entitling the plaintiffs to prevailing wages. However, the Second Circuit found New York law unsettled on whether a promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract (even if not expressly stated) and whether a contractual one-year limitations period is enforceable against workers’ third-party beneficiary claims. The court therefore certified these two questions to the New York Court of Appeals for resolution. View "Walton v. Comfort Systems" on Justia Law

Customers of a heating oil company in Massachusetts brought a state court class action alleging that, starting in 2012, the company sold home heating oil with excessive biodiesel content, which damaged their heating equipment. The company received a demand letter and complaint in March 2019, before it was insured by the plaintiff insurance company. The insurance company began providing coverage in July 2019 under a commercial general liability policy and an umbrella policy. The policy included provisions excluding coverage for property damage known to the insured before the policy period began.After being asked to defend the company in the state class action, the insurer refused, arguing that the company’s prior knowledge of the alleged damage—based on the demand letter, complaint, and media coverage—triggered the policy’s known loss and loss-in-progress exclusions. The insurer then filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The state court class had two subclasses: customers who received oil before July 5, 2019, and those who first received oil after that date.The district court found that the insurer had no duty to defend claims by customers who received oil before the policy period, but did have a duty to defend claims by customers who first received oil after coverage began, since the company could not have known of damage that had not yet occurred. Applying the “in for one, in for all” rule, the court held the insurer must defend the entire suit. The court denied summary judgment for the insurer on the duty to defend and granted partial summary judgment to the insured.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s known loss and loss-in-progress provisions did not bar coverage for claims by customers whose property damage began after the policy period commenced, and thus the insurer has a duty to defend the entire class action. View "Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peterson's Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, two individuals who held automobile insurance policies with a major insurer in California alleged that the insurer’s rates became excessive due to a significant reduction in driving and traffic accidents. They claimed that the insurer was required by statute to refund a portion of the premiums collected during this period, even though the rates had previously been approved by the state’s insurance commissioner. The insurer did provide partial refunds in response to directives from the insurance commissioner, but the plaintiffs argued these refunds were insufficient and sought further restitution on behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders.The Superior Court of Alameda County initially allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint after sustaining a demurrer. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs continued to assert claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for unjust enrichment, maintaining that the insurer’s failure to provide full refunds violated Insurance Code section 1861.05(a). The trial court, however, sustained the insurer’s subsequent demurrer without leave to amend, holding that the statutory scheme did not require insurers to retroactively refund premiums collected under previously approved rates, even if those rates later became excessive due to changed circumstances.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case on appeal. The court held that Insurance Code section 1861.05(a) does not impose an independent obligation on insurers to retroactively refund premiums collected under rates approved by the insurance commissioner, even if those rates later become excessive. The court reasoned that the statutory scheme provides for prospective rate adjustments through the commissioner’s review process, not retroactive modifications. The court also found that the insurer’s conduct was affirmatively permitted under the statutory “prior approval” system, and thus not actionable under the Unfair Competition Law. The judgment in favor of the insurer was affirmed. View "Davis v. CSAA Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

A plaintiff who lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic applied for and received regular unemployment benefits from the Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD). After exhausting those benefits, he applied for and received additional benefits under the federally funded Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) program, created by the CARES Act. Following an audit, ESD redetermined his eligibility, reduced his weekly benefit, and assessed overpayments, sending him multiple, confusing notices with inconsistent information and deadlines. While the plaintiff appealed, ESD began offsetting his ongoing PEUC benefits to recover the alleged overpayments.An administrative law judge later found that ESD’s notices failed to provide adequate explanation or legal basis for the benefit reductions and overpayment assessments, and ordered ESD to issue a new redetermination. ESD reimbursed the plaintiff for the offset amounts, but its system continued to show a balance owed. The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging deprivation of property without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Social Security Act. The district court held that while the plaintiff had a property interest in regular unemployment benefits, he did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in PEUC benefits, because state participation in the PEUC program was voluntary and could be terminated at any time.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit held that the CARES Act’s PEUC program, once a state opted in, created a constitutionally protected property interest in PEUC benefits for eligible individuals. The Act’s mandatory language and objective eligibility criteria significantly constrained state discretion, giving rise to legitimate claims of entitlement. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "STERLING V. FEEK" on Justia Law

Two individuals applied for jobs at a retail liquor store chain in Washington after a new state law required employers to include wage and benefit information in all job postings. Both applicants submitted their applications through a third-party website, Indeed.com, where the postings did not include the required pay information. One of the applicants also interviewed in person and discussed pay with the store manager but ultimately declined a job offer. Both individuals then filed a class action lawsuit, seeking statutory damages for the employer’s failure to comply with the disclosure requirements.The case was initially brought in King County, Washington. The employer argued that the plaintiffs were not the type of “job applicants” the law was intended to protect, asserting that only those with a genuine or “bona fide” interest in the job should be eligible for remedies. The parties disagreed on the meaning of “job applicant” under the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, faced with this dispute, certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court, asking what a plaintiff must prove to be considered a “job applicant” under the statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that, under RCW 49.58.110(4), a person qualifies as a “job applicant” if they apply to a specific job posting, regardless of their subjective intent or whether they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” applicant. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute does not require proof of genuine interest in the position, and that the legislature intentionally omitted such a requirement. The court’s answer clarified that subjective intent is irrelevant for eligibility to seek remedies under the EPOA. View "Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC" on Justia Law

Walmart, a national pharmacy operator, was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas from 2016 to 2018 regarding its opioid dispensing practices. The investigation included raids, subpoenas, and meetings where prosecutors indicated a possible indictment, but ultimately, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute criminally, though a civil investigation continued. In 2020, a news article revealed the investigation, causing Walmart’s stock price to drop. Later that year, the DOJ filed a civil lawsuit against Walmart for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act.Investors who owned Walmart stock during the relevant period filed a putative securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. They alleged that Walmart’s public filings failed to adequately disclose the government investigation, violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that Walmart’s statements about its “reasonably possible” liabilities and compliance with accounting rules (ASC 450) were misleading. The District Court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss, finding no actionable misrepresentation or omission, and denied plaintiffs’ request to further amend their complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Walmart’s omission of the investigation from its disclosures before June 4, 2018, was not misleading because the investigation did not constitute a “reasonably possible” material liability at that stage. After June 4, 2018, Walmart’s disclosures sufficiently informed investors about the existence and potential impact of government investigations. The court also found no violation of ASC 450 and affirmed the District Court’s denial of leave to amend, concluding that further amendment would be futile. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims. View "In re Walmart Inc. Securities Litigation" on Justia Law