Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff, a Bank of America (BOA) accountholder, was charged two separate out-of-network (OON) balance inquiry fees when using a non-BOA ATM. She claimed that only the first fee was permissible under the contract, arguing that a "balance inquiry" should be defined as a customer-initiated request for balance information. BOA contended that it could charge a fee whenever an ATM transmitted a balance inquiry request, regardless of the customer's actions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of BOA on both the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The court also denied class certification, reasoning that individual issues predominated over common ones, particularly concerning the subjective intent of each class member and variations in ATM prompts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, agreeing with the plaintiff that a "balance inquiry" should be defined as a customer-initiated transaction. The court found that BOA's interpretation, which allowed fees based on ATM transmittals, was unreasonable and not supported by the contract's language. The court affirmed the summary judgment on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, as it was indistinguishable from the breach of contract claim. The court also affirmed the district court's decision that the plaintiff's failure to follow pre-dispute procedures did not bar her claim.The Ninth Circuit vacated the denial of class certification and remanded the case for reconsideration, noting that the court's interpretation of "balance inquiry" alleviated concerns about the need to probe the subjective intent of individual class members. View "Schertzer v. Bank of America, NA" on Justia Law

Cybercriminals hacked into T-Mobile's computer systems, stealing personal information of approximately 76.6 million customers. Several customers filed class action lawsuits against T-Mobile, which were centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The parties reached a settlement, with T-Mobile agreeing to create a $350 million fund for affected customers and to spend an additional $150 million on data security improvements. Class counsel requested $78.75 million in attorneys' fees, which two class members, Cassie Hampe and Connie Pentz, objected to as excessive.The district court struck Hampe's and Pentz's objections and overruled them on the merits. The court found Hampe's objection to be in bad faith, influenced by her attorneys' history as serial objectors, and struck it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Pentz's objection was struck as a discovery sanction after she refused to cooperate with class counsel's discovery efforts. Both objectors appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in striking Hampe's objection, as Rule 12(f) does not apply to objections and there was no evidence of bad faith in this case. The court also found that the district court erred in awarding attorneys' fees, determining that the fee award was unreasonable given the relatively short duration and limited discovery of the case. The court affirmed the decision to strike Pentz's objection but reversed the decision to strike Hampe's objection and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding for further proceedings. View "Daruwalla v. Hampe" on Justia Law

The case involves two groups of Montgomery residents who were jailed for failing to pay traffic fines. They sued the City of Montgomery, a private contractor (Judicial Correction Services, Inc.), and a lawyer (Branch D. Kloess), alleging that the process of converting fines into jail sentences violated the U.S. Constitution and Alabama law. The plaintiffs sought to certify their claims as class actions, arguing that the City and its contractors systematically failed to conduct proper inquiries into their ability to pay before jailing them.The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied class certification in both cases. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, particularly the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The court concluded that the claims would require individualized inquiries into each probationer's circumstances, such as whether they were given proper hearings and whether the City or its contractors acted wrongfully or in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of class certification. It agreed that the plaintiffs' claims necessitated individualized proof, making it difficult to resolve the issues on a class-wide basis. The court emphasized that the evidence required to prove the claims, such as records of what happened at individual probation hearings, was not available on a common, class-wide basis. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claims involved a variety of individual incidents rather than a single, systemic issue that could be addressed collectively.In summary, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification, as the plaintiffs' claims required individualized inquiries that did not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The decision to deny class certification was affirmed. View "Carter v. The City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

J.M., an 11-year-old student, filed a class action lawsuit through his guardian ad litem against Illuminate Education, Inc., an education consulting business. J.M. alleged that Illuminate obtained his personal and medical information from his school to assist in evaluating his educational progress. Illuminate promised to keep this information confidential but negligently maintained its database, leading to a data breach where a hacker accessed the information. Illuminate delayed notifying J.M. and other victims about the breach for five months, during which J.M. began receiving unsolicited mail and phone calls.The trial court sustained Illuminate's demurrer, concluding that Illuminate did not fall within the scope of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) or the Customer Records Act (CRA) and that J.M. failed to state a cause of action. J.M. filed a proposed second amended complaint with additional facts and a motion for reconsideration. The trial court reviewed the amended pleadings but maintained that J.M. had not stated a cause of action and could not amend to do so, thus sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and entering judgment for Illuminate.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that Illuminate falls within the scope of the CMIA and CRA. The court found that J.M. stated sufficient facts to support causes of action under both statutes. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court, allowing J.M. to file an amended complaint with additional facts. View "J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc." on Justia Law

Christa Taylor purchased an automobile insurance policy from Root Insurance Company. After her vehicle was damaged in a hailstorm, Root determined it to be a total loss and paid Taylor the vehicle's actual cash value of $22,750. However, Root did not include an amount representing the sales tax in this payment. Taylor argued that the policy required Root to pay the applicable sales tax in addition to the actual cash value and filed a putative class action for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case. Root moved to dismiss Taylor's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended granting Root's motion and denying Taylor's request for leave to amend her complaint. The district court conducted a de novo review, agreed with the magistrate judge, and dismissed the suit. Taylor then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the insurance policy's language required Root to pay only the "applicable sales tax," and since a total-loss settlement is not considered a sale under Texas law, no sales tax was applicable. The court also noted that actual cash value does not include taxes and fees payable to purchase a replacement vehicle under Texas law. Consequently, Root did not breach the policy, nor did it violate the TPPCA. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Taylor's claims. View "Taylor v. Root Insurance" on Justia Law

The case involves nine lawsuits filed in Connecticut state court, each asserting state-law personal injury claims related to the use of Zantac. The plaintiffs, represented by the same firm, structured their complaints to avoid federal jurisdiction by including fewer than 100 plaintiffs per suit and ensuring that each suit included a Connecticut plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate these actions, citing Connecticut Practice Book § 9-5, which the defendants argued proposed a joint trial, thus triggering federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut remanded the cases to state court, finding that the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate was intended only for pretrial purposes, not for a joint trial. The district court noted that the plaintiffs' motion cited authority that could be used for either pretrial management or a joint trial but concluded that the context indicated a pretrial purpose, especially given the plaintiffs' efforts to avoid federal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that CAFA requires a determination of whether the plaintiffs intended to seek a joint trial. The court found that the plaintiffs' motion, when read in context, proposed only pretrial consolidation. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' consistent efforts to avoid federal jurisdiction supported this interpretation. Thus, the appellate court concluded that the defendants did not meet their burden to demonstrate that federal jurisdiction existed under CAFA. View "Bacher v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a putative class action brought by the plaintiff against Kimberly Clark Corp., alleging that the labeling of the defendant's baby wipes was misleading under California's false advertising laws. The plaintiff claimed that the terms "plant-based wipes" and "natural care®" on the front label, along with nature-themed imagery, suggested that the wipes contained only natural ingredients without chemical modifications. However, the wipes contained synthetic ingredients.The United States District Court for the Central District of California separated the product labels into two categories: those with an asterisk and a qualifying statement ("Asterisked Products") and those without ("Unasterisked Products"). The district court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, concluding that both categories were not misleading as a matter of law. The court reasoned that the asterisk and qualifying statement on the Asterisked Products clarified that the wipes were not entirely plant-based, and the back label's disclaimer about synthetic ingredients dispelled any potential misrepresentation for both categories.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims regarding the Unasterisked Products, holding that the front label could plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer to believe the wipes contained only natural ingredients, precluding reliance on the back label at the pleadings stage. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims regarding the Asterisked Products, finding that the asterisk and qualifying statement, along with the back label, made it impossible for the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable consumer would be deceived. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the complaint failed to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "WHITESIDE V. KIMBERLY CLARK CORP." on Justia Law