Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A food and beverage server brought a class action lawsuit against several hotel and resort entities, alleging that from 2010 to 2016, the hotels imposed service charges on customers but failed to distribute the full amount of those charges as gratuities to employees. Instead, the hotels retained a portion of the service charges without clearly informing customers that not all of the service charge would go to employees as tips. The disclosures provided by the hotels during this period stated that “a portion” of the service fee was allocated to employees as “tips or wages” and another portion to cover other costs, but did not specify the exact amount or percentage distributed to employees.In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, both parties moved for summary judgment. The circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the hotels’ disclosures were insufficient because they did not specify the portion of the service charge distributed to employees. The hotels appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed the circuit court’s decision. The ICA held that the statute did not require disclosure of the specific amount or percentage distributed to employees and that the hotels’ disclosures were sufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that the ICA erred in concluding the hotels’ disclosures satisfied Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 481B-14. The court determined that merely reciting statutory language or stating that “a portion” of the service charge goes to employees is ambiguous and does not clearly inform consumers. The court held that when only part of a service charge is distributed as tips, the employer must disclose the amount or percentage paid to employees. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment, affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. Mauna Kea Resort LLC." on Justia Law

George Jackson purchased a RainSoft home water treatment system from Carolina Water Systems, which operated as an authorized service provider for Home Depot in North Carolina and South Carolina. At the time of purchase, Carolina Water Systems was running a promotion that offered customers rebates or refunds for referring other potential buyers, with the possibility of a full refund for sufficient referrals. Jackson later defaulted on payments for the system, leading to a debt-collection action by Citibank. In response, Jackson argued that his debt was void under North Carolina’s referral statute, which prohibits sales promotions offering consideration for customer referrals. He subsequently brought a putative class action against the defendants, seeking relief for himself and others who purchased systems during the promotion.After preliminary issues were resolved, including a federal court removal and arbitration challenges, Jackson moved in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County to certify a class of all purchasers of RainSoft systems from the defendants between November 2012 and November 2016. The trial court granted class certification, finding that the requirements for class actions were met and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the class certification order. The Court held that North Carolina’s referral statute does not require proof that the illegal sales promotion induced each buyer to make a purchase, thus supporting class certification for North Carolina residents. However, the Court found that South Carolina’s referral statute does require inducement, which would necessitate individualized inquiries and defeat the predominance requirement for class certification. Therefore, the Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Russell Johnson, a resident of a continuing care retirement community operated by Stoneridge Creek, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Stoneridge Creek unlawfully increased residents’ monthly care fees to cover its anticipated legal defense costs in ongoing litigation. Johnson claimed these increases violated several statutes, including the Health and Safety Code, the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Elder Abuse Act, and breached the Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) between residents and Stoneridge Creek. The RCA allowed Stoneridge Creek to adjust monthly fees based on projected costs, prior year per capita costs, and economic indicators. In recent years, Stoneridge Creek’s budgets for legal fees rose sharply, with $500,000 allocated for 2023 and 2024, compared to much lower amounts in prior years.The Alameda County Superior Court previously denied Stoneridge Creek’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the RCA’s arbitration provision unconscionable. Johnson then moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Stoneridge Creek from including its litigation defense costs in monthly fee increases. The trial court granted the injunction, finding a likelihood of success on Johnson’s claims under the CLRA and UCL, and determined that the fee increases were retaliatory and unlawfully shifted defense costs to residents. The court also ordered Johnson to post a $1,000 bond.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the fee increases did not violate the CLRA’s fee-recovery provision or other litigation fee-shifting statutes, as these statutes govern judicial awards of fees, not how a defendant funds its own legal expenses. The court further concluded that Health and Safety Code section 1788(a)(22)(B) permits Stoneridge Creek to include reasonable projections of litigation expenses in monthly fees. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider whether the fee increases were retaliatory or excessive, and to reassess the balance of harms and the appropriate bond amount. View "Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC" on Justia Law

An individual whose nursing license was revoked in 2011 was subsequently excluded from participating in federally funded health care programs, a status that remains ongoing. When she later applied for a job involving health care consulting, the prospective employer requested a background check from a consumer reporting agency. The agency’s report disclosed both her current exclusion from federal health care programs and the fact that her license had been revoked in 2011. As a result, her job offer was rescinded. She disputed the report but was unsuccessful.She then filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that the agency violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by including adverse information more than seven years old in its report. The district court granted summary judgment for the agency, holding that reporting the ongoing exclusion was permissible because it was a continuing event, and that reporting the reason for the exclusion (the license revocation) was also allowed. The court further found that, even if there was a violation, the agency’s interpretation of the FCRA was not objectively unreasonable, so there was no negligent or willful violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the agency did not violate the FCRA by reporting the ongoing exclusion, as such exclusions may be reported for their duration and for seven years after they end. However, the court found that reporting the underlying license revocation, which occurred more than seven years before the report, did violate the FCRA. Despite this, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment because the agency’s interpretation of the statute was not objectively unreasonable, and thus its violation was neither negligent nor willful. View "Grijalva v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals who allegedly owed debts to Kentucky public institutions—either for medical services at the University of Kentucky or for educational services at the University of Kentucky, Morehead State University, or the Kentucky Community & Technical College System—challenged the referral of their debts to the Kentucky Department of Revenue for collection. The plaintiffs argued that the statutes used to justify these referrals did not apply to their debts and that the Department unlawfully collected the debts, sometimes without prior court judgments or adequate notice. The Department used its tax collection powers, including garnishments and liens, to recover these debts, and in some cases, added interest and collection fees.In the Franklin Circuit Court, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and monetary relief, including refunds of funds collected. The Circuit Court ruled that the Department was not authorized by statute to collect these debts and held that sovereign immunity did not protect the defendants from the plaintiffs’ claims. The court also certified the medical debt case as a class action. The Court of Appeals reviewed these interlocutory appeals and held that while sovereign immunity did not bar claims for purely declaratory relief, it did bar all claims for monetary relief, including those disguised as declaratory relief.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that sovereign immunity does not bar claims for purely declaratory relief or for a refund of funds that were never due to the state, nor does it bar constitutional takings claims. However, the court held that sovereign immunity does bar claims for a refund of funds that were actually due to the state, even if those funds were unlawfully or improperly collected. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings to determine which funds, if any, were never due to the state and thus subject to refund. The court also found that statutory changes rendered prospective declaratory relief in the medical debt case moot, but not retrospective relief. View "LONG V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

A website visitor in Pennsylvania interacted with a retail website that used session replay code provided by a third party to record her mouse movements, clicks, and keystrokes. The visitor did not enter any sensitive or personal information during her session. She later brought a putative class action against the website operator, alleging that the use of session replay code constituted intrusion upon seclusion and violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because she did not allege a concrete injury. The court reasoned that the mere recording of her website activity, which did not include any personal or sensitive information, was not analogous to harms traditionally recognized at common law, such as disclosure of private information or intrusion upon seclusion. The court also found that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and agreed that the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. The Third Circuit held that the alleged harm was not closely related to the traditional privacy torts of disclosure of private information or intrusion upon seclusion, as the information recorded was neither sensitive nor publicly disclosed, and there was no intrusion into the plaintiff’s solitude or private affairs. The court also clarified that a statutory violation alone does not automatically confer standing without a concrete harm. However, the Third Circuit determined that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and modified the order to a dismissal without prejudice, affirming the order as modified. View "Cook v. GameStop, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals from five different states purchased ovens with front-mounted burner knobs manufactured by a major appliance company. They allege that these ovens have a defect causing the stovetop burners to turn on unintentionally, sometimes resulting in gas leaks. The plaintiffs claim they were unaware of this defect at the time of purchase, but that the manufacturer had prior knowledge of the issue through consumer complaints sent to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and reviews posted on the company’s website. The plaintiffs assert that, had they known about the defect, they would have paid less for the ovens or not purchased them at all.The plaintiffs filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging violations of federal warranty law, fraud by omission, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection statutes. The district court found that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, as they alleged a concrete injury, but dismissed all claims for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their state common law fraud and statutory consumer protection claims, while the manufacturer argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing because they plausibly alleged economic injury from overpaying for a defective product. The court further held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the manufacturer’s knowledge of the defect and its safety risks, particularly because the CPSC had sent incident reports directly to the manufacturer. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of most state law fraud and consumer protection claims, except for the Illinois common law fraud claim, which failed for lack of a duty to disclose under Illinois law. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Tapply v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

A plaintiff, Alin Pop, filed a putative class action against LuliFama.com LLC and other defendants, including several social media influencers, alleging a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Pop claimed he purchased Luli Fama swimwear after seeing influencers endorse the products on Instagram without disclosing they were paid for their endorsements. Pop argued that this non-disclosure was deceptive and violated FDUTPA.The case was initially filed in Florida state court but was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court held that because Pop's FDUTPA claim sounded in fraud, it was subject to the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court found that Pop's complaint failed to meet this standard as it did not specify which posts led to his purchase, which defendants made those posts, when the posts were made, or which products he bought. The court also found that the complaint failed to state a claim under the ordinary pleading standards.Pop appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement applies to FDUTPA claims that sound in fraud. The court found that Pop's allegations closely tracked the elements of common law fraud and thus required particularity in pleading. The court also held that Pop failed to properly request leave to amend his complaint, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. View "Pop v. LuliFama.com LLC" on Justia Law

A plaintiff purchased a product marketed by the defendant as "Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer for Sensitive Skin." She alleged that the product contained oils and oil-based ingredients, contrary to its labeling. She filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, claiming violations of California's deceptive marketing and consumer protection laws. The district court certified a class of California purchasers of the product.The defendant challenged the district court's reliance on the plaintiff's economic expert's proposed damages model, arguing it was too preliminary and did not match the plaintiff's theory of harm. The district court found the expert's model reliable for class certification purposes, noting that similar models had been approved in other cases. The defendant also argued that the elements of materiality and reliance were not susceptible to common proof, but the district court disagreed, finding that these elements could be established by reference to an objective, reasonable consumer standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert's model could reliably measure damages on a classwide basis and matched the plaintiff's theory of harm. The court emphasized that the model need not be fully executed at the class certification stage, as long as it is reliable and capable of measuring damages in a manner common to the class. The court also held that materiality and reliance could be proven on a classwide basis using a reasonable consumer standard, and the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the inference of reliance.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of class certification. View "Noohi v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc." on Justia Law

Lisa Bodenburg, an Apple customer, purchased a 200 GB iCloud data storage plan, expecting it to add to the 5 GB of free storage she already had, resulting in a total of 205 GB. When she discovered that the plan only provided 200 GB in total, she filed a putative class action against Apple, alleging breach of contract and violations of California’s consumer protection laws due to Apple’s allegedly deceptive representations about its iCloud storage plans.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Bodenburg’s action with prejudice. The court found that Bodenburg could not state a claim for breach of contract because Apple had fulfilled its contractual obligations by providing the additional storage as described in the iCloud Legal Agreement. The court also found that Bodenburg’s claims under California’s consumer protection laws did not satisfy the “reasonable consumer” test or the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that Bodenburg could not state a claim for breach of contract because the iCloud Legal Agreement did not promise an additional 200 GB of storage but rather additional storage, which Apple provided. The court also held that Bodenburg’s claims under California’s consumer protection laws failed the reasonable consumer test, as Apple’s statements were not misleading when considered in context. Additionally, the claims did not meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements because Bodenburg could not demonstrate that Apple’s statements were false or deceptive. Thus, the dismissal of Bodenburg’s action was affirmed. View "Bodenburg v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law