Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and having weapons under disability. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a suggestion of incompetence to stand trial and a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. A psychologist conducted a court-ordered evaluation on the issues of Defendant’s competency and sanity. Defendant later withdrew the defenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when it allowed the psychologist to testify during trial. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery, concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 2945.371(J) prohibits the use of statements made by a defendant in a psychiatric evaluation against the defendant on the issue of guilt in a criminal action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when a defendant asserts a mental-capacity defense, resulting in the court ordering a psychiatric evaluation, but then the defendant wholly abandons the defense, a psychologist’s testimony regarding the defendant’s feigning of mental illness during the court-ordered evaluation is inadmissible in the state’s case-in-chief pursuant to section 2945.371(J); and (2) the trial court’s admission of the psychologist’s testimony in this case was not harmless error. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Special Management Unit housing unit within the Lewisburg U.S. Penitentiary houses inmates identified as having violent tendencies or having a history of gang involvement while incarcerated. Inmates assigned to the SMU are confined to their cells for 23 hours a day, but can spend the remaining hour in a recreation cage. When first assigned to the SMU, inmates are interviewed by prison officials to ensure that inmates who may be hostile to each other are not housed in the same cell. Shelton, a USP inmate, filed a purported class action, alleging that the defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of improperly placing inmates who are known to be hostile to each other in the same cell. He also claims that the defendants fail to intervene when the predictable inmate-on-inmate violence erupts, and that defendants improperly restrain inmates who refuse cell assignments with inmates who are known to be hostile to them. The district court denied Shelton’s motion for class certification and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a Federal Tort Claims Act claim, but vacated the denial of class certification and summary judgment as to an Eighth Amendment claim. View "Shelton v. Bledsoe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against Old Republic, a company that sells home warranty plans, alleging that Old Republic arbitrarily denied claims made by him and a putative class of similarly situated policyholders of Old Republic plans, or otherwise cheated him and this class out of benefits owed under their policies. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's orders denying his motion for class certification, denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint, and granting Old Republic's motion for partial summary judgment. The court did not reach the merits of the district court's order because the appeal is moot. The parties settled all of plaintiff's claims and plaintiff expressly released all of his claims against Old Republic. Applying Narouz v. Charter Commc'sn, the court concluded that the appeal is moot because plaintiff has no financial interest or other personal interest whatsoever in class certification. View "Campion v. Old Republic Protection Co." on Justia Law

Non-Settling Defendants seek to overturn a partial final judgment approving the settlement of certain putative class actions. The settled claims were brought by Investor Plaintiffs who were individual and institutional investors in so-called Bernard Madoff feeder funds managed by the Fairfield Greenwich Group (Settling Defendants). The Non-Settling Defendants challenged a provision in the settlement agreement that provides that investors who filed claims under the settlement submit to the district court's jurisdiction for the sole purpose of participating in the settlement and not for any other purpose. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that a settlement which does not prevent the later assertion of a non-settling party's claims, does not cause the non-settling party "formal" legal prejudice. Therefore, the court concluded that the Non-Settling Defendants did not have standing to object to the settlement. The court declined to address the remaining issues on appeal and dismissed for lack of standing.View "Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, et al. v. Bhatia, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed an order certifying a class and a subclass of inmates in Arizona's prison system who claim that they are subject to systematic Eighth Amendment violations. Defendants argued that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs have demonstrated commonality and typicality under Rule 23(a). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiffs' claims depend upon common questions of law or fact that are answerable in one stroke. Here, plaintiffs are all inmates in ADC custody and each declares that he or she is being exposed, like all other members of the putative class, to a substantial risk of serious harm by the challenged ADC policies. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality and typicality requirement of Rule 23(a). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a single injunction and declaratory judgment could provide relief to each member of the proposed class and subclass. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Parsons v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Consumers who purchased an advertised product that promised they could "eat all you want and still lose weight" were dissatisfied with the results and filed a class action against the manufacturers for false advertising. The parties entered into mediation, where they drafted and signed a document outlining the terms of a settlement. They then informed the district court that the mediation had been successful and, in subsequent months, exchanged several drafts further documenting the settlement. During the drafting, the parties could no longer agree on terms and defendants informed the district court they no longer intended to settle. The plaintiff class then filed a motion to enforce the settlement achieved at the mediation, and the district court granted that motion because it concluded the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement. On appeal, the plaintiffs contested the Tenth Circuit's interlocutory jurisdiction. The defendants challenged the merits of the district court’s conclusion that the parties had, in fact, reached a binding settlement. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the case was an impermissible interlocutory appeal because the district court's judgment was not a final one. Finding that it lacked jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Miller, et al v. Basic Research, et al" on Justia Law

This antitrust class action stemmed from an allegation that Dow Chemical Company conspired with its competitors to fix prices for polyurethane chemical products. Over Dow’s objection, the district court certified a plaintiff class including all industrial purchasers of polyurethane products during the alleged conspiracy period. The action went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict against Dow. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, denying Dow’s motions for decertification of the class and judgment as a matter of law. Dow raised four issues on appeal, all of which the Tenth Circuit rejected. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "In re: Urethane AntiTrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, consumers, filed suit in Minnesota state court against ConAgra, claiming that some Hebrew National beef products were not, as the label reads, "100% kosher." ConAgra removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1453. The district court decided that the First Amendment prohibited the courts from adjudicating plaintiffs' legal claims and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that plaintiffs alleged economic harm - even if only a few pennies each - was a concrete, non-speculative injury. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs' allegations failed to show that any of the particular packages of Hebrew National beef they personally purchased contained non-kosher beef. Without any particularized reason to think that plaintiffs' own packages of Hebrew National beef actually exhibited the alleged non-kosher defect, plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue ConAgra and CAFA did not extend federal jurisdiction to this case. The court vacated the district court's judgment, reversed the district court's dismissal with prejudice, and remanded with instructions to return this case to the state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.View "Wallace, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case were amendments to the Sex Offender Registry Law that the Governor signed into law on July 12, 2013, including amendments that would require the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) to publish on the Internet information contained in the sex offender registry regarding individuals given a level two or three classification. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiffs, as putative representatives of a class of persons presently and prospectively classified as level two sex offenders, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking an injunction barring SORB from publishing registry information on the Internet of the class of level two offenders. The Supreme Judicial Court declared unconstitutional the retroactive application of the amendments to the extent they would require the Internet publication of the registry information of individuals who were finally classified as level two sex offenders on or before July 12, 2013 but noted that SORB was allowed to publish on the Internet the registry information of any individual who was given a final classification as a level two sex offender after July 12, 2013.View "Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd." on Justia Law

The Hawaii AG filed suit in state court against six credit card providers, alleging that each violated state law by deceptively marketing and improperly enrolling cardholders in add-on credit card products. The card providers removed to federal court and the AG moved to remand. The district court denied the motion to remand. The court concluded that the state law claims were not preempted by the National Bank Act of 1864, 12 U.S.C. 85-86. The court joined the Fifth Circuit in holding that sections 85 and 86 did not completely preempt the claims, as there is a difference between alleging that certain customers are being charged too much, and alleging that they should have never been charged for the service in the first place. Therefore, the AG did not plead a completely preempted claim and the district court erred in finding federal question jurisdiction. The court agreed with its sister circuits in holding that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), does not completely preempt state law. Because the complaints unambiguously disclaimed class status, these actions cannot be removed under CAFA. There is no basis for federal jurisdiction and the cases should have been remanded to state court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "State of Hawaii v. HSBC Bank of Nevada" on Justia Law