Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

The case involves Elaine Neidig, who had three mammograms at Valley Health System's Winchester Medical Center between 2016 and 2019. In 2019, the FDA found that some mammograms performed at the facility had serious image quality deficiencies. Neidig received a notification from Valley Health about these issues and subsequently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Valley Health misrepresented the quality of its mammography services. She claimed that the mammograms were worthless and sought economic damages, including statutory damages for consumer protection violations, compensatory damages, and contract damages. Neidig did not claim any physical or emotional injury.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia dismissed Neidig's complaint, ruling that her claims fell under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) and were barred by the MPLA’s statute of limitations. The court found that the MPLA applied because the claims were related to health care services, despite Neidig's argument that her claims were purely economic and not based on physical or emotional injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, asking whether the MPLA applies to claims where the plaintiff disclaims any form of physical or emotional injury. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reformulated the question to ask whether the MPLA applies when the plaintiff claims only economic damages and disclaims all liability based on physical injury, emotional injury, or death.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the MPLA does not apply to a suit against a health care provider or health care facility when the plaintiff claims only economic damages and disclaims all liability based on physical injury, emotional injury, or death. The court emphasized that the MPLA requires a predicate claim arising from the death or injury of a person, and since Neidig's claims were solely for economic damages, the MPLA did not apply. View "Neidig v. Valley Health System" on Justia Law

In 2018, Marriott announced a data breach affecting the guest reservation database of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, which Marriott had acquired in 2016. The breach exposed personal information of approximately 133.7 million guests, including some payment card information. Plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against Marriott and Accenture, a third-party IT service provider for Starwood and Marriott during the breach. The cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the District of Maryland.The district court initially certified multiple state-specific damages classes against Marriott and issue classes against both Marriott and Accenture. However, the court did not address the effect of a class-action waiver in the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (SPG) contract, which Marriott argued precluded class certification. The Fourth Circuit vacated the class certification, instructing the district court to consider the class-action waiver's impact.On remand, the district court again certified the classes, holding that Marriott had waived its right to enforce the class-action waiver by participating in multidistrict litigation (MDL) and by agreeing to pretrial proceedings in Maryland, contrary to the SPG contract's venue and choice-of-law provisions. The court also suggested that the class-action waiver might be unenforceable under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Marriott did not waive its right to enforce the class-action waiver and that the waiver was valid and enforceable. The court found that the waiver applied to the plaintiffs' claims, including consumer protection and negligence claims, as they were related to the SPG Program. Consequently, the court reversed the certification of all classes against Marriott and the issue classes against Accenture, as the latter were justified only in combination with the Marriott damages classes. View "Maldini v. Marriott International, Incorporated" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Joshua Naranjo, filed a class action lawsuit against Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc., alleging violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) due to the hospital's practice of charging an undisclosed "Evaluation and Management Services Fee" (EMS Fee) to emergency room patients. Naranjo claimed that the fee was charged without prior notification or agreement, making it an unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practice.The Superior Court of Stanislaus County sustained the hospital's demurrer to each cause of action in Naranjo's first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. Naranjo appealed, and the Court of Appeal initially reversed the judgment, finding that Naranjo had stated valid causes of action under the UCL and CLRA and for declaratory relief. The court also directed the trial court to consider any future motion by Naranjo to amend his FAC to state a breach of contract cause of action.The California Supreme Court granted review and subsequently transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal, directing it to reconsider the matter in light of its ruling in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP. In Capito, the Supreme Court held that hospitals do not have a duty under the UCL or CLRA to disclose EMS fees to emergency room patients prior to treatment beyond what is required by the statutory and regulatory scheme.Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeal concluded that Naranjo's claims are barred to the extent they are based on an alleged duty to disclose EMS fees prior to treatment. However, the court found that Naranjo had stated a valid contract-based cause of action for declaratory relief and should be allowed to amend his FAC to state causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the UCL and CLRA, subject to specific parameters. The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc." on Justia Law

In spring 2020, Czigany Beck, a full-time student at Manhattan College, paid tuition and a comprehensive fee for the semester. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the college transitioned to remote learning in March 2020, and Beck received only 46% of her education in person. Beck filed a class action lawsuit against Manhattan College, claiming breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment for not refunding a portion of her tuition and fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Beck's claims. The court found that the college's statements were not specific enough to constitute a promise for in-person classes or access to on-campus facilities. The court also ruled that the comprehensive fee was nonrefundable based on the college's terms, and thus Beck's unjust enrichment claim for fees was barred. The court granted summary judgment to Manhattan College on Beck's remaining unjust enrichment claim for tuition, concluding that the college's switch to online instruction was reasonable given the pandemic.Beck appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court's judgment should be reversed based on the decision in Rynasko v. New York University. Manhattan College countered with decisions from the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division, which supported affirming the district court's judgment. The Second Circuit identified a split between federal and state courts on New York contract-law principles and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals: whether New York law requires a specific promise to provide exclusively in-person learning to form an implied contract between a university and its students regarding tuition payments. The Second Circuit reserved decision on Beck's appeal pending the New York Court of Appeals' response. View "Beck v. Manhattan College" on Justia Law

David O’Connell filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for fraudulent solicitation of donations. O’Connell alleged that USCCB misled donors about the use of funds collected through the Peter’s Pence Collection, which were purportedly for emergency assistance but were instead used for investments and other purposes. O’Connell claimed that if he had known the true use of the funds, he would not have donated.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied USCCB’s motion to dismiss the case, which was based on the church autonomy doctrine. The District Court found that O’Connell’s claims raised a secular dispute that could be resolved using neutral principles of law, without delving into religious doctrine. The court emphasized that it would not address purely religious questions if they arose during litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed USCCB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the collateral order doctrine did not apply. The court held that the church autonomy defense could be adequately reviewed on appeal after a final judgment, and that the denial of the motion to dismiss was not conclusive or separate from the merits of the case. The court emphasized that the church autonomy doctrine does not provide immunity from suit but serves as a defense to liability. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "O'Connell v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" on Justia Law

Gerald Silver filed a putative class action against the City of Albuquerque, alleging that the City violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making pre-recorded phone calls to invite residents to virtual town hall meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Silver claimed he received at least seven such calls on his cell phone. The City argued that it was not subject to the TCPA as it was not a "person" under the statute and that the calls fell under the TCPA’s emergency purposes exception.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the City’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the calls fell within the emergency purposes exception of the TCPA. The court did not address whether the City was a "person" under the TCPA. Silver appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that even assuming the TCPA applies to local governments, Silver’s complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that the calls were made by a local government official, were informational, and were made necessary by the COVID-19 pandemic to inform residents about virtual town hall meetings, which were a mitigation measure in response to the pandemic. Therefore, the calls fell within the TCPA’s emergency purposes exception. The court did not need to determine whether local governments qualify as persons under the TCPA. View "Silver v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

Jina Garcia received treatment from St. Anthony North Hospital, operated by Centura Health Corporation, following a motor vehicle accident. Garcia informed the hospital that she had Medicare and Medicaid coverage and that her automobile insurance carrier was Progressive Insurance. Centura asserted a hospital lien against Garcia for $2,170.35 without billing Medicare first. Garcia filed a class action lawsuit against Centura, alleging violations of the hospital lien statute by filing liens before billing Medicare, seeking damages of twice the amount of the asserted liens.The District Court of the City and County of Denver certified a class and ordered Garcia to respond to substantial discovery requests from Centura. Garcia objected, arguing the requests were irrelevant, overbroad, and violated her privacy. The district court required Garcia to provide much of the requested discovery. Garcia sought relief from the Colorado Supreme Court, which issued an order to show cause and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to determine the relevance and proportionality of the discovery requests.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case again and concluded that the district court abused its discretion in ordering Garcia to respond to the discovery requests. The court found that the discovery sought by Centura was not relevant to the claims or defenses in the case and was not proportional to the needs of the case. The court emphasized that the principal factual issues were whether Centura asserted liens without billing Medicare and the amount of those liens. The court made its order to show cause absolute and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Garcia v. Centura Health Corp." on Justia Law

Michael Salazar filed a class action lawsuit against Paramount Global, alleging a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Salazar claimed that he subscribed to a 247Sports e-newsletter and watched videos on 247Sports.com while logged into his Facebook account. He alleged that Paramount had installed Facebook’s tracking Pixel on 247Sports.com, which enabled Paramount to track and disclose his video viewing history to Facebook without his consent.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed Salazar’s complaint. The court found that Salazar had standing because the alleged disclosure of his video viewing history to Facebook constituted a concrete injury. However, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the VPPA, concluding that Salazar was not a “consumer” under the Act. The court reasoned that Salazar’s subscription to the 247Sports e-newsletter did not qualify him as a “consumer” because the newsletter was not “audio visual materials.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit agreed that Salazar had standing but held that he did not plausibly allege that he was a “consumer” under the VPPA. The court interpreted the term “goods or services” in the context of the VPPA to mean audio-visual materials, and since Salazar’s newsletter subscription did not involve audio-visual materials, he was not a “consumer” under the Act. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, as Salazar had not filed a formal motion to amend his complaint. View "Salazar v. Paramount Global" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case are four Oregon residents who filed a putative class action against Tillamook County Creamery Association (Tillamook) under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). They allege that Tillamook falsely represented the nature and origin of its dairy products, claiming they were sourced from small, family-owned farms in Tillamook County, while most of the milk actually came from a large factory farm in eastern Oregon. Plaintiffs argue that these misrepresentations led consumers to suffer economic harm by purchasing products they otherwise would not have bought or by paying inflated prices.The Multnomah County Circuit Court partially granted Tillamook’s motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiffs must plead that Tillamook’s false representations were observed and relied upon by anyone seeking recovery. The court dismissed the claims based on a price-inflation theory and a prohibited-transaction theory, reasoning that the class must be limited to consumers who purchased Tillamook products in reliance on the marketing representations.The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that plaintiffs’ UTPA claim required them to plead reliance on Tillamook’s representations. The court rejected the price-inflation theory, likening it to the fraud-on-the-market theory used in securities fraud cases, and found it inapplicable to consumer goods. The court also determined that the prohibited-transaction theory required proof of reliance, as the claimed loss was the purchase price resulting from misrepresentations.The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that plaintiffs’ premium-price theory and prohibited-transaction theory do not require pleading reliance. The court explained that the premium-price theory alleges that Tillamook’s deceptive marketing inflated the market value of its products, causing all purchasers to pay higher prices, regardless of individual reliance. Similarly, the prohibited-transaction theory claims that plaintiffs suffered loss by purchasing misbranded or falsely advertised products, which does not depend on consumers’ awareness of the misrepresentations. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Assn." on Justia Law

Paul Osheske, a Facebook user, purchased a movie ticket on Landmark Theatres' website. Landmark Theatres, operated by Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., shared the name of the film, the location of the showing, and Osheske’s unique Facebook identification number with Facebook without his consent. Osheske filed a class action lawsuit against Landmark, alleging that this disclosure violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Osheske’s complaint, concluding that Landmark Theatres did not qualify as a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court reasoned that the activities of selling tickets and providing an in-theater movie experience did not fall under the VPPA’s definition of “rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the VPPA does not apply to businesses providing a classic in-theater moviegoing experience. The court determined that the statutory text and historical context of the VPPA indicate that the Act was intended to cover the rental, sale, or delivery of video products, not the provision of shared access to film screenings in a theater. Consequently, Landmark Theatres' conduct did not make it a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court also noted that the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend was proper, as the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. View "OSHESKE V. SILVER CINEMAS ACQUISITION COMPANY" on Justia Law