Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A group of Union Pacific Railroad Company employees filed a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that its fitness-for-duty program violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Todd DeGeer, believing he was part of this class, filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge and an individual lawsuit after the class was decertified. DeGeer argued that his claims were tolled under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah doctrine. The district court dismissed his claims as untimely, finding that DeGeer was not a member of the narrowly defined class.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska initially certified a class that included Union Pacific employees subjected to fitness-for-duty evaluations due to a reportable health event. DeGeer was on a list of employees provided by Union Pacific and submitted a declaration supporting the plaintiffs' certification motion. However, the class definition was later narrowed, and the district court certified the class under this new definition. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the class certification, leading DeGeer to file his individual claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Eighth Circuit held that DeGeer was entitled to American Pipe tolling because the revised class definition did not unambiguously exclude him. The court emphasized that ambiguities in class definitions should be resolved in favor of applying tolling. Consequently, DeGeer's claims were tolled during the pendency of the class action, making his individual lawsuit timely. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "DeGeer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

TD Ameritrade offers brokerage services to retail investors, allowing them to trade stocks through its online platform. The company routes customer orders to trading venues for execution. Roderick Ford, representing a group of investors, alleged that TD Ameritrade's order-routing practices violated the company's duty of best execution by prioritizing venues that paid the company the most money rather than those providing the best outcomes for customers. Ford claimed this violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that CEO Frederic J. Tomczyk was jointly liable under § 20(a) of the Act.A magistrate judge initially recommended denying Ford's motion for class certification due to the predominance of individual questions of economic loss. However, the district court certified a class, believing Ford's expert's algorithm could address these issues. The Eighth Circuit reversed this decision, stating individual inquiries were still necessary. Ford then proposed a new class definition and moved again for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), (b)(2), and (c)(4). The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3) and alternatively under Rule 23(b)(2) and (c)(4).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's certification order for abuse of discretion. The court found that Ford's new theory of economic loss, based on commissions paid, did not align with the previous definition of economic loss and still required individualized inquiries. Consequently, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also found that the alternative certifications under Rule 23(b)(2) and (c)(4) were improper due to the predominance of individual issues and the lack of cohesiveness among class members. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." on Justia Law

Four former Tesla employees, Sharonda Taylor, Shaka Green, Tatianna Smith, and Zenobia Milligan, requested personnel records from Tesla 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 plant. Despite the requests, Tesla did not provide the requested records, citing a stay in the Vaughn case due to an ongoing appeal. The plaintiffs then filed a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action against Tesla for failing to comply with the Labor Code.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, denied Tesla's anti-SLAPP motion, which argued that the PAGA claims arose from protected petitioning activity related to the Vaughn case. The court found that the plaintiffs' requests for personnel records were independent of the Vaughn litigation and were merely an exercise of their statutory rights under the Labor Code.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 records did not constitute protected 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' PAGA claims did not rely on any "written or oral statement or writing" by Tesla. The court also found that Tesla's conduct did not meet the criteria for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute's "catchall" provision, as it did not contribute to any public issue or debate. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of Tesla's anti-SLAPP motion. View "Taylor v. Tesla, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs from twenty-six states sought class certification in their lawsuit against General Motors, LLC (GM) for alleged defects in the 8L45 and 8L90 transmissions of vehicles purchased between 2015 and 2019. Plaintiffs experienced "shudder" and shift quality issues that persisted despite repairs. GM argued that the class lacked standing and that individualized issues would predominate over common issues in the class-action suit.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined that the Plaintiffs had standing and could satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, thus certifying the class. GM appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Plaintiffs had standing, as they alleged overpayment for defective products, which suffices for Article III standing. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class, as the common questions of law and fact predominated over individualized issues. The court addressed GM's arguments regarding state laws requiring manifest defects, reliance, causation, and merchantability, concluding that these issues did not preclude class certification. The court also held that GM had waived its right to arbitration by engaging in litigation and seeking dispositive rulings on the merits.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's class certification, allowing the class-action lawsuit against GM to proceed. View "Speerly v. General Motors, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, dog owners, alleged that Nutramax Laboratories falsely marketed their product, Cosequin, as promoting healthy joints in dogs, despite evidence suggesting it provided no such benefits. They claimed this violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The district court certified a class of California purchasers who were exposed to the allegedly misleading statements on Cosequin’s packaging.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified the class, relying on the proposed damages model of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jean-Pierre Dubé, who had not yet executed his model. Nutramax challenged this, arguing that the model needed to be applied to the class to demonstrate that damages were susceptible to common proof. The district court found Dr. Dubé’s model sufficiently reliable for class certification purposes and concluded that common questions predominated regarding injury. Nutramax also contended that the element of reliance was not susceptible to common proof, but the district court found that classwide reliance could be established through proof of material misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there is no general requirement for an expert to apply a reliable damages model to the proposed class to demonstrate that damages are susceptible to common proof at the class certification stage. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Dubé’s proposed model sufficiently sound. Additionally, the court rejected Nutramax’s argument regarding reliance, affirming that classwide reliance could be established under the CLRA through proof of material misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of class certification. View "LYTLE V. NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC." on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to modernize the billing system for the Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The rollout in 2013 resulted in billing errors, leading the City to sue PwC in 2015, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. Concurrently, a class action was filed against the City by Antwon Jones, represented by attorney Jack Landskroner, for overbilling. Discovery revealed that the City’s special counsel had orchestrated the class action to settle claims favorably for the City while planning to recover costs from PwC.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City engaged in extensive discovery abuse to conceal its misconduct, including withholding documents and providing false testimony. The court imposed $2.5 million in monetary sanctions against the City under the Civil Discovery Act, specifically sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, which allow sanctions for discovery misuse.The California Court of Appeal reversed the sanctions, interpreting the Civil Discovery Act as not granting general authority to impose sanctions for discovery misconduct beyond specific discovery methods. The appellate court held that sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize sanctions but must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act.The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the trial court did have the authority to impose monetary sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for the City’s pattern of discovery abuse. The Supreme Court clarified that these sections provide general authority to sanction discovery misuse, including systemic abuses not covered by specific discovery method provisions. View "City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP" on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of Google Chrome users who chose not to sync their browsers with their Google accounts alleged that Google collected their personal data without consent. They believed that, based on Google's Chrome Privacy Notice, their data would not be collected if they did not enable sync. The users filed a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming violations of various state and federal laws.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Google. The court found that the data collection was "browser-agnostic," meaning it occurred regardless of the browser used. It concluded that Google's general privacy policies, which the users had consented to, governed the data collection. The court held that a reasonable person would understand from these policies that Google collected data when users interacted with Google services or third-party sites using Google services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court should have determined whether a reasonable user would understand Google's various privacy disclosures as consenting to the data collection. The court found that the district court erred by focusing on the technical distinction of "browser agnosticism" rather than the reasonable person standard. The appellate court noted that Google's Chrome Privacy Notice could lead a reasonable user to believe that their data would not be collected without enabling sync. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the users consented to Google's data collection practices. View "CALHOUN V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves veterans' benefits appeals that were erroneously deactivated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) due to a computer program error. The VA operates two adjudicatory systems for benefits claims, and the legacy system is relevant here. Under this system, a claimant must file a Notice of Disagreement and, if unresolved, a Substantive Appeal. The VA's electronic database, VACOLS, automatically closed appeals if no timely Substantive Appeal was noted, leading to approximately 3,000 erroneously closed appeals. This affected U.S. Army veterans J. Roni Freund and Marvin Mathewson, whose successors are the named petitioners in this class action.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed the petitions and denied class certification. The court found the case moot as to the individual petitioners after the VA reactivated their appeals. It also held that the petitioners failed to meet the commonality and adequacy requirements for class certification under Rule 23. The court did not address whether the case was moot as to the class or the superiority of class resolution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Veterans Court abused its discretion in its commonality and adequacy findings. The Federal Circuit held that the inherently transitory exception to mootness applied, as the VA's practice of reactivating appeals quickly made it likely that individual claims would become moot before class certification could be ruled upon. The court also rejected the Secretary's argument that the class was not ascertainable due to the difficulty in identifying class members.The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court's order denying class certification and remanded the case for further consideration of class certification and appropriate relief. View "FREUND v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

In 2013, Johnny Ray Penegar, Jr. was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and Medicare partially covered his treatment costs. He filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer, UPS, and its insurer, Liberty Mutual. After his death, his wife, Carra Jane Penegar, continued the claim and added a death benefits claim. The North Carolina Industrial Commission (NCIC) ruled in her favor, ordering Liberty Mutual to cover all medical expenses related to the mesothelioma and reimburse any third parties, including Medicare. The NCIC's decision was affirmed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied further review. In 2020, Penegar and Liberty Mutual settled, with Liberty Mutual agreeing to pay $18,500 and to handle any Medicare liens.Penegar filed a class action lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP Act), alleging that Liberty Mutual failed to reimburse Medicare, leading to a collection letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) demanding $18,500. Liberty Mutual moved to dismiss, arguing Penegar lacked standing and that the settlement precluded her claims. The district court agreed, finding Penegar lacked standing and dismissed the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Penegar did not suffer a cognizable injury in fact at the time she filed the lawsuit. The NCIC had ordered Liberty Mutual to reimburse Medicare directly, not Penegar, distinguishing her case from Netro v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Inc. Additionally, the CMS letter only posed a risk of future harm, which is insufficient for standing in a damages suit. Finally, any out-of-pocket expenses Penegar incurred were already compensated by Liberty Mutual before she filed the lawsuit, negating her claim of monetary injury. View "Penegar v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law