Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Robert Gallagher borrowed money from Santander Consumer USA to purchase a car. After making the final payment via electronic funds transfer, Santander, following its standard practice, waited 15 days before sending the car title. Missouri law requires lienholders to release their lien within five business days after receiving full payment, including electronic funds transfers, or pay liquidated damages. Gallagher filed a lawsuit in Missouri state court on behalf of a potential class of borrowers affected by Santander's 15-day policy.The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted summary judgment in favor of Santander. Gallagher appealed the decision, seeking to reverse the summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court focused on whether Gallagher had standing to bring the case in federal court, specifically whether he had suffered an injury-in-fact. The court determined that Gallagher had not identified a concrete harm resulting from the delay in receiving the car title. The court noted that a statutory violation alone is insufficient for standing; there must be a concrete harm related to the violation. Gallagher did not demonstrate any monetary harm, such as a failed sale or impaired credit rating, nor did he show any ongoing injury to his property rights.The Eighth Circuit concluded that Gallagher lacked standing because he did not suffer a concrete injury. As a result, the court vacated the district court's judgment and instructed the district court to remand the case to state court. View "Gallagher v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Linda Thompson filed a putative class action against the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (the "Exchange") in Illinois state court, alleging that the Exchange printed her credit card’s expiration date on purchase receipts, violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). The Exchange removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which allows federal agencies to remove cases to federal court. Thompson moved to remand the case to state court, arguing lack of Article III standing, while the Exchange moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Thompson’s motion to remand and granted the Exchange’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the Exchange, as a federal entity, could remove the case without asserting a colorable federal defense and had an absolute right to litigate in federal court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that the Exchange did not need to present a federal defense to remove the case. However, it found that the district court erred in dismissing the suit. The Seventh Circuit held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), when a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, it must remand the case to state court. The court noted that Thompson’s lack of Article III standing did not preclude state court jurisdiction, as state courts are not bound by Article III constraints. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to remand it to state court. View "Thompson v Army and Air Force Exchange Service" on Justia Law

The case involves Taylor Capito, who filed a class action lawsuit against San Jose Healthcare System, LP, also known as Regional Medical Center San Jose, challenging the assessment of Evaluation and Management Services (EMS) fees for two emergency room visits. Capito argued that Regional had a duty to notify emergency room patients about EMS fees beyond listing them in the chargemaster, such as through posted signage or during the patient registration process. She claimed that Regional's failure to do so constituted an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).The trial court sustained Regional's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court reasoned that hospitals do not have a duty to disclose EMS fees beyond what is required by the relevant statutory and regulatory framework, following the reasoning in similar cases like Gray v. Dignity Health and Saini v. Sutter Health. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court's order striking the class allegations in Capito's first amended complaint.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The court held that hospitals do not have a duty under the UCL or CLRA, beyond their obligations under the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme, to disclose EMS fees prior to treating emergency room patients. The court emphasized that requiring such disclosure would alter the balance of competing interests, including price transparency and the provision of emergency care without regard to cost, as reflected in the multifaceted scheme developed by state and federal authorities. The court also dismissed Capito's appeal from the trial court's order striking her class allegations as moot. View "Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Doe filed a class action lawsuit against Integris Health, Inc., alleging that Integris collected confidential health information from its website visitors and unlawfully shared it with third parties like Google and Facebook. Doe's complaint, filed in Oklahoma state court, asserted state law claims including negligence, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Integris removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, claiming it was acting under the direction of a federal officer by helping the federal government achieve its objective of ensuring patient access to electronic health records (EHR).The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma remanded the case to state court, concluding that Integris had not demonstrated it was "acting under" the direction of a federal officer. The court found that Integris was merely complying with federal regulations, which is insufficient to establish federal officer jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Integris was not "acting under" a federal officer because it was only complying with federal regulations and not fulfilling a basic government task. The court emphasized that compliance with federal law, even if highly detailed and supervised, does not equate to acting under a federal officer. The court also noted that Integris's use of tracking technology on its website was not required by the federal government and was not part of any federal directive. Therefore, the court concluded that removal under the federal officer removal statute was improper. View "Doe v. Integris Health" on Justia Law

A group of car owners from ten states sued Nissan, alleging that certain models equipped with automatic electronic braking systems had a defect causing "phantom activations" at inappropriate times, such as at railroad crossings or in parking garages. The plaintiffs claimed this defect breached warranties, constituted fraud, violated consumer protection statutes, and unjustly enriched Nissan. They sought to certify ten statewide classes of owners or lessees of the affected models.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee certified the ten classes under Civil Rule 23(b)(3), finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated common questions of law or fact. Nissan appealed, arguing that the classes did not meet the requirements for certification, particularly due to differences in the software updates that had been applied to the braking systems over time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court had not conducted a rigorous analysis of the commonality requirement. The appellate court noted that the district court failed to consider the material differences in the software updates and how these differences might affect the existence of a common defect. Additionally, the district court did not analyze the elements of each state law claim to determine whether they could be resolved with common answers.The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's certification of the classes and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the elements of each claim and the impact of the software updates on the alleged defect. The court also held that the district court must perform a Daubert analysis to ensure the reliability of the plaintiffs' expert testimony, which was critical to establishing the commonality of the defect across the different models and software versions. View "IN RE: NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,INC. LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Shymikka Griggs filed a data-breach action against NHS Management, LLC, a consulting firm providing management services for nursing homes and physical-rehabilitation facilities. NHS collects sensitive personal and health information from employees, patients, and vendors. In May 2021, NHS discovered a cyberattack on its network, which lasted 80 days. NHS notified affected individuals, including Griggs, in March 2022. Griggs, a former NHS employee, claimed her personal information was found on the dark web, leading to credit issues, spam communications, and fraudulent activities.Griggs initially filed a class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama but later dismissed it. She then filed a class-action complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court in June 2023, alleging negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. NHS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed Griggs's complaint with prejudice.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court held that Griggs failed to sufficiently plead her claims. Specifically, she did not demonstrate that NHS owed her a duty under Alabama law, failed to establish proximate cause for her negligence per se claim, did not allege intentional conduct for her invasion-of-privacy claim, and did not show that she conferred a benefit on NHS for her unjust-enrichment claim. Additionally, the court found that breach of confidence is not a recognized cause of action in Alabama and that Griggs did not establish a fiduciary relationship between her and NHS. View "Griggs v. NHS Management, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2017, CNU of Alabama, LLC, and Shakeena Cox entered into a loan agreement allowing Cox to take cash advances. Cox took three advances totaling $1,250 but later defaulted. CNU assigned its rights to UHG I LLC, which then sued Cox in Mobile District Court. Cox argued the agreement, including an arbitration provision, was void under the Alabama Small Loan Act. The district court agreed and ruled in Cox's favor.UHG appealed to the Mobile Circuit Court, where Cox filed a counterclaim on behalf of herself and a class, adding CNU as a party and seeking injunctive relief and damages. Both companies moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement's arbitration provision. The circuit court denied the motions, holding that the agreement and arbitration provision were void under the Small Loan Act, the arbitration provision was unconscionable, and UHG had waived its right to arbitrate by appealing the district court's decision. UHG and CNU appealed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the circuit court's decision denying the motions to compel arbitration for Cox's counterclaim, holding that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable. The court determined that challenges to the agreement's validity, including claims of voidness and unconscionability, were for an arbitrator to decide. However, the court affirmed the circuit court's decision that UHG waived its right to arbitrate its initial collection claim by pursuing it in court. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "CNU of Alabama, LLC v. Cox" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, residents of Wisconsin, filed two class action complaints against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). They alleged that Experian failed to include a required statement in the "Summary of Rights" portion of their consumer reports, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(c)(2)(D). Plaintiffs sought actual, statutory, and punitive damages. Experian removed the cases to federal court, where Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing they lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution because they did not suffer a concrete harm. The federal court agreed and remanded the cases to state court.In state court, Experian moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Plaintiffs lacked standing under Wisconsin law and that their FCRA claim did not fall within the statute's "zone of interests." Plaintiffs contended California law should apply and that they had standing under it. The trial court, referencing the recent Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. decision, which required a concrete injury for standing in California state courts, granted Experian's motion. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing Limon was wrongly decided.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found Limon persuasive, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege a concrete or particularized injury. The court noted that under both California and federal law, an informational injury without adverse effects is insufficient to confer standing. Consequently, the judgment in favor of Experian was affirmed. View "Muha v. Experian Information Solutions" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, alleging anticompetitive practices in violation of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs had purchased tickets through Ticketmaster’s website, which required them to agree to Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use. These terms included an arbitration agreement mandating that disputes be resolved by an arbitrator from New Era ADR, using expedited/mass arbitration procedures.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the clause delegating the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator was unconscionable under California law, both procedurally and substantively. The court also held that the entire arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The defendants appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement as a whole were unconscionable under California law. The court found that the delegation clause was part of a contract of adhesion and that the terms on Ticketmaster’s website exhibited extreme procedural unconscionability. Additionally, the court identified several features of New Era’s arbitration rules that contributed to substantive unconscionability, including the mass arbitration protocol, lack of discovery, limited right of appeal, and arbitrator selection provisions.The Ninth Circuit also held that the application of California’s unconscionability law to the arbitration agreement was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As an alternate and independent ground, the court held that the FAA does not preempt California’s prohibition of class action waivers in contracts of adhesion in large-scale small-stakes consumer cases, as established in Discover Bank v. Superior Court. The court concluded that Ticketmaster’s Terms and New Era’s Rules were independently unconscionable under Discover Bank. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "HECKMAN V. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC." on Justia Law

Michael Salazar filed a putative class action against the National Basketball Association (NBA) alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Salazar claimed that he signed up for the NBA’s free online newsletter, provided personal information, and watched videos on NBA.com. He alleged that the NBA disclosed his video-watching history and Facebook ID to Meta Platforms, Inc. without his consent, violating the VPPA.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Salazar’s complaint. The court concluded that while Salazar had standing to sue, he did not plausibly allege that he was a “consumer” under the VPPA. The court reasoned that the VPPA only applies to consumers of audiovisual goods or services, and the NBA’s online newsletter did not qualify as such. The court also found that signing up for the newsletter did not make Salazar a VPPA “subscriber.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Salazar’s alleged injuries were sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing. It also found that the district court erred in holding that Salazar was not a “subscriber of goods or services” under the VPPA. The appellate court concluded that the VPPA’s definition of “goods or services” is not limited to audiovisual materials and that Salazar’s exchange of personal information for the NBA’s online newsletter made him a “subscriber.” Consequently, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Salazar v. NBA" on Justia Law